The Borden Hoard & History of King Cunobelin

This story begins on the 1st of January 1873 with the chance finding of three ancient gold coins in Kent, England.

Robertson 2000, 8-9 no. 35: “Near the boundary of the parish of Borden, while digging ground for a garden, “Mr. Prentis’ men discovered three gold coins. At first two were found together, one being Roman, and bearing the profile of Claudius Caesar, the other being a British coin of Cunobelin. The second discovery brought to light only one coin; another Cunobelin, but of a type which has never before been engraved.”

There was comment at the time and since that there may be more coins associated with the above find, a statement which, in 2018 drew great interest from an avid metal detectorist who came across this information while researching sites of potential interest. They contacted the landowner who kindly gave permission for them to search their farm for the site of this tantalising earlier find.

Many hours of searching followed with interesting finds but nothing in the way of ancient gold coins. Working around arable crop meant only very limited windows for searching, something which all metal detectorists will know well.

February 2019 came, field conditions were optimal and the search was on. A single gold stater of Cunobelin was discovered in the area described; could this be a part of the lost treasure? No further coins could be located although it was noted that the soil was particularly deep on this field, perhaps the coins were out of reach of metal detectors, which rarely detect below 12 inches. On mentioning this to the landowner it was suggested that an excavator be used to remove sections of the top soil and this led to more coins being discovered. A further 41 gold staters of Cunobelin were found, bringing the Hoard total to 42 coins.

The find was reported under the Treasure Act (1996) and deposited at the British Museum for further study. After the find being declared treasure, it was disclaimed and returned to the finder as no museum wished to acquire them.

Cunobelin seems to have begun to rule over the Catavellaunii in about AD 8 after the death of Tasciovanus. Writing in the early 1st century AD, the Roman historian Suetonius refers to him as ‘Brittanorum Rex’ – King of the Britons. Although this exaggerates reality, it is evident that he was viewed even by the Romans as an important figure in the region. Evidence that Cunobelin himself was in some way sponsored or supported by the Roman emperor Augustus is perhaps supported by the fact that on one of his coins, he styles himself as ‘rex’ (using the Latin word for king) – in complete contrast to his father’s usage of the Brythonic term ‘rigonos’. This seems very much to be a conscious, politically-minded choice that literate users of these coins would have recognised.

Cunobelin’s first act, as a ruler in his own right, seems to have been to finish the task begun by his father, achieving a takeover of the Trinovantian capital – Camulodunon (modern day Colchester) and their surrounding territories. Coin finds imply that this did occur (when exactly is uncertain), though it probably took several years. Many of Cunobelin’s earlier bronze and silver coins, which often name him alongside his father, cluster primarily in the historic central-southern ‘home’ territories of the Catavellaunii. By contrast, his later gold coinages inscribed CAMV[LODVNON] have a much wider distribution which also extends further eastwards into Suffolk, Essex and parts of Kent.

Some have suggested Cunobelin’s slow but inexorable process of ‘annexation’ started shortly after his reign began, taking advantage of the Roman military disaster in AD 9 at the Teutoburgerwald. In this engagement, the 17th, 18th and 19th legions (totalling some 20,000 men, plus camp followers, staff officers and logistical support) were systematically destroyed in a week-long running engagement after being ambushed by the Germanic tribes. This cataclysmic event not only deprived the Romans of manpower in northwestern Europe, but also diverted their attention from Britain. Although the Roman state generally took a poor view of conflict between neighbouring client-kings under their sponsorship, it would have been difficult to enforce this in the aftermath of such a catastrophic military defeat and Rome’s pressing need to reinforce the Rhine borders.

Any expectation that Cunobelin would be content with annexing the territory of his immediate neighbours, would prove to be incorrect. It appears that from around AD 20 onwards some degree of friction began to occur between the Northern and Southern dynasties – the latter being the second major tribal confederation of Late Iron Age Britain – the Atrebates. Ruled over by their king, Verica, the heartlands of their territory consisted what is today western West Sussex, east Hampshire, Surrey, Berkshire and perhaps parts of Oxfordshire. While Cunobelin himself ruled over the heartlands of the Catavellaunii and what had been Trinovantian territory, it was his relatives who appear to have been chosen to expand into and then rule over his new outer ‘provinces’. His brother or half-brother Epatticus (who styles himself as ‘TASCI[OVANVS] F[ILIVS]’ on his impressive gold staters) (Fig. 4) was apparently selected to annex the territory of the Atrebates. Although he did not manage to conquer all their holdings, coin find distributions suggest his dominion extended over a large part of Atrebatic territory by AD 25, consisting an arc of territory running broadly from Chichester in the south to Swindon in the north. Most of his coins were probably struck at the historic regional capital of Calleva Atrebatum – a location which will be familiar to those enthusiasts for Roman archaeology in its later iteration as the post-conquest settlement of Silchester. Despite his successes, upon Epaticcus’s death, somewhere around AD 35, much of the Atrebatic territory taken by him was temporarily lost.

The area that we now call Kent was a fertile one probably dominated by the growing of cereal crops, and the geographically closest point to the Continent. As it is today, the region was a logical entry point for new trade goods, peoples and ideas. It is one of the first places in southern Britain to demonstrate the influx of ‘Belgic’ cultural markers (as discussed in the Introduction) in the early 1st century BC. For example, the so-called Aylesford-Swarling culture – defined by the presence of cremation cemeteries and Britain’s first indigenously-made wheel-thrown pottery, is one focused mainly in Kent and the surrounding counties. When plotted, finds of Gallo-Belgic coins dating from 120-60 BC show a large clustering in Kent – indicating that this was likely the region in which they first arrived and circulated intensely. Perhaps inspired by their French cousins, the Iron Age inhabitants of the area were responsible for the first coins manufactured in Britain – the ‘flat linear’ potins copying issues from the former Greek colony of Massalia (modern day Marseilles), Fig. 5.

Writing in his personal account of the Gallic Wars (De Bello Gallico), Julius Caesar himself extolled its status as a cosmopolitan and highly developed region. When he invaded Britain in 55 and 54 BC, both his landings were sited in Kent;

‘By far the most civilised (of the British tribes) are those who dwell in Kent, which is an entirely maritime region. They differ only in small respects from the Gauls in their customs and way of life.’ Caesar, De Bello Gallico, book 5, v. 14.

When Caesar invaded Kent, he records an encounter with five ‘kings’ from Cantium who opposed him, Cassivellaunos; Cingetorix, Carvilius, Taximagulus and Segovax. Due to their number, these were probably local chieftains rather than kings. Whatever their status or titles, they never issued any coins – or at least, no coins bearing their names or an abbreviation thereof have been securely attributed to them.

Coinage certainly existed in Kent during this period, and indeed a series of distinctive gold quarter staters were struck in the area in the three decades after Caesar’s invasion. However, none of these were inscribed.

Somewhere around 20 BC, the Kentish picture changes somewhat. Coins begin to appear bearing the name ‘DUBNOVELLAUNOS’, struck in gold, silver and bronze. In terms of artistic style, many of these compare well with Trinovantian issues of Addedomaros – and thus it has been suggested that Dubnovellaunos was perhaps another ruler affiliated with this confederation. However, a key difference is in the findspots of their respective coins – whereas both Addedomaros’ and Dubnovellaunos’ coins centre on Hertfordshire, only Dubnovellaunos’ are found in comparably large numbers south of the Thames.

This observation might imply that the two were affiliated or allied in some respect, with Dubnovellaunos’ sphere of influence extending to hegemony over Kent as well as areas north of the Thames. It is also notable that in the ‘Res Gestae Divi Augusti’ (lit. trans. ‘the achievements of the deified Augustus’), a self- aggrandising document compiled by the Roman Emperor Augustus in the early years of the 1st century AD, reference is made to a ‘King Dumnobellaunos’ from Britain paying tribute to him as a suppliant – could this be the same man?

Cunobelin’s last years

In AD 41, after around 30 years of rule – Cunobelin died. Probably aged in his 60’s or 70’s, he had accomplished much during his life. A great swathe of Britain seems to have come under the control of the North Thames dynasty, benefiting greatly from its pro-Roman stance and trade with the continent. His coins circulated widely across Southern Britain, and distant emissaries from tribes such as the Corieltavi and Dobunni apparently paid him homage. Although by no means King of all the Britons, he was certainly Britain’s most powerful Iron Age ruler.

As befitting his importance, the old king would likely have been laid to rest in a prominent location, probably within a mound or barrow – surrounded by luxurious grave goods befitting his immense wealth. Despite much searching, this has never been found. Local folklore names him as the occupant of the so-called tumulus at Lexden, near Colchester – though this was seemingly only sealed somewhere between 15 and 10 BC. Containing a silver medal depicting the Roman Emperor Augustus, a table and pieces of monumental statuary in bronze amongst other high-status items, it is now considered more likely to be the grave of a Trinovantian king – perhaps somebody like Addedomaros or Dubnovellaunos.

The Coinage of Cunobelin

For many years, academics and scholars have argued about the purpose and meaning behind coinage in Iron Age Britain. Unfortunately, on the whole these are questions which in their exploration have produced few answers. It is generally mooted that the production of gold coins struck in the aftermath of Caesar’s invasion was probably produced with a view to making bullion ‘official’, promoting artistry and turning large amounts of precious metal into smaller, portable objects associated with the concept of elite gift-giving, votive deposition and some larger trade transactions.

However, by the last two decades of the 1st century BC, this had turned into the production of distinct ‘trimetallic’ denominations (gold, silver and bronze) as part of what was probably a largely monetary based economy. Despite this, religious overtones still remained – and it is indeed true that many later Iron Age coins are to be found in large numbers at shrine sites along other artefact types. Presumably, these were deposited there as dedications to the deity the shrine stood in honour to. Some were undoubtedly deposited in the Late Iron Age, whereas others seem to have been buried later – perhaps as late as the second or third century AD in some instances.

Cunobelin’s coinage is extensive, in fact – it is the broadest issued by any ruler during the British Late Iron Age. Almost 80 different types of gold staters, quarter staters, silver units, bronze units and rarer fractional pieces were struck in his name. This fact alone makes forming a comprehensive collection of his coins a worthy challenge indeed for any collector.