Coins
and Power in Late Iron Age Britain by JOHN CREIGHTON
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2000.
249 pages, 45 half-tones, 2 tables, 4 graphs, 34 figures, 6 maps. ISBN
0 521 77207 9 hard cover (£55)
It is rare for a book to appear that everyone interested
in a given period must read and should have an opinion upon. Coins
and power in Late Iron Age Britain is one of those books. It is
essential reading for anyone studying the Later Pre-Roman Iron Age or
Early Roman period in northern Europe, and has much to offer anyone
interested in the question of the social organisation of middle ranking
societies.
The book looks at the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age in southern
England from essentially 100 BC to the Roman Conquest in AD 43. This
is a period of major social change that has recently been explained
in terms of external forces, be they migration or cross channel trade.
John Creighton brings together archaeological, historical and, particularly,
coin evidence to provide a synthesis that concentrates on political
developments. It places the transformations in south east England at
this time in the context of the contemporary political developments
within the Roman world, especially Octavian’s rise to power after
the murder of Julius Caesar and his creation of the Roman Empire and
himself as Augustus.
After setting the scene, the book considers the early
coinage of Late Iron Age southern England, which now is recognised as
starting in the middle of the 2nd Century BC (i.e. in the Middle Iron
Age). In particular, John sees the abstract imagery on these ‘Gallo-Belgic’
and other ‘British’ coins as imagery drawn from trance experiences.
The main argument of the book essentially begins with Julius Caesar’s
invasions of southern England in 55 and 54 BC. John sees these events
as leaving a direct and profound immediate political effect in southern
England. He argues that Caesar left behind political clients, having
de facto conquered south east England for Rome and that these political
clients were more than just a convenient set of words. They were and
continued to be rulers tied to and dependent upon the Roman political
machine.
The rest of the book develops this thesis and what
consequences it has for southern England. It especially looks at how
the political institutions and ideologies that developed in south east
England developed as part of a larger changing Roman political discourse.
Most of the argument of the book is derived from a study of the imagery
and language on southern English coins. These show a marked change in
the last decades of the 1st Century BC with the appearance of the names
of rulers and classical inspired imagery. That these changes take place
at the same time that Augustus is establishing him as ‘emperor’
with new political institutions and a new, changing ideological language
is not a co-incidence for John. An important part of the book is the
detailed study of coin imagery showing how key elements on the English
coins are derived from major themes in the ideological imagery employed
on Augustus’ coins. These images are also found on the coins of
other ‘friendly kings’ around the limits of the Roman Empire,
such as the kings of Numidia and Armenia. John explains these links
as the direct result of client kings and members of the their families
from around the edge of the empire having been in Rome as hostages,
guests or exiles where they received an education and inculcation into
Roman political ways. This is the central part of the argument; that
the rulers of southern England were members of the Roman world; had
been educated in Rome; adopted many aspects of Roman elite lifestyles;
and were the clients of the empire whose positions and major actions
were dependent, or prescribed, by Rome.
Above all this is a speculative straightforward narrative
about political change. It is only really about the rulers of south
east England, and then really about them through their coins. It takes
one important thesis about Rome’s ‘Friendly Kings’
and runs with that idea far, furious and fast. Too which it is right
to ask if it goes too far, furious and fast?
Other reviews from the perspectives of Ancient History
and Numismatics have raised important questions about the thesis, as
do I from the perspective of the archaeology. This book is, in essence,
a new attempt to write history from coins, and like previous attempts
to write the history of Late Iron Age Britain from the coins, it does
not get to grips with what these coins were actually made to do. It
is also essentially focused on the ‘southern Kingdom’, a
polity in West Sussex and East Hampshire. The larger and ultimately
more powerful ‘eastern Kingdom’ in Essex, Hertfordshire,
Kent and surrounding areas features from time to time, but is not considered
in any depth. There is no discussion of what was happening in any other
part of Britain, nor is there much detailed discussion of what was happening
before these two polities emerged c. 30-10 BC. These are important
qualifications. The ‘eastern Kingdom’ comes out of a very
different archaeological background than the ‘southern Kingdom’.
The changing social and political conditions in Hampshire and Sussex
in the 150 years before the southern kingdom are also only treated in
a cursory manner. New work suggests that social developments in East
Anglia, the Midlands and the south West of England all contributed to
the shape of developments in the two polities. But these regions are
barely mentioned in the book. While, the specific developments in southeast
England are just one of a diverse, but presumably related, set of changes
across the whole of Britain and Ireland from c. 200 BC onwards.
As a book focused on coins and contacts with Rome there is also no discussion
of other classes of evidence such as settlement, burial, agriculture
or economy from the south east of England from 50 BC to AD 43, except
when it directly relates to the main thesis.
For me, the book ultimately tries too hard to make
everything fit into the hostage/client king model. But then I am sure
I, and others, are equally guilty of this crime on occasions. This may
detract from many worthwhile ideas the book throws up and the central
importance of its contributions. The book makes us look at coins and
ask why they have what they have on them. John Creighton clearly shows
that the rulers of southeast England after 40-30 BC exercised and justified
their power in a very different ways than previously, ways that show
a close understanding of and contact with the political life, manners
and ideological practices of Rome. The question for everyone reading
this book to ask is whether this could only be because these rulers
had been hostages in Rome and were client kings closely tied and dependent
on the Empire. Indeed, at the end of the book, this reviewer was left
with the impression that these British rulers were really ‘puppets’
of Rome in all senses of the word. They are painted as people incapable
of their own creative thoughts, actions and improvisations. These people
are cast as incapable of being exactly the same astute and creative
political operators in Rome, who as hostages they are supposed to have
learnt from. Whatever the final resolution of the debate John Creighton
has started, the Late Iron Age of Britain cannot and should not be the
same again.
JD Hill
The British Museum
Review Submitted: April 2004
The views expressed in this review are not
necessarily those of the Society or the Reviews Editor.
|