Making a mint : : comparative studies in Late Iron Age coin mould / / Mark Landon.

• VerfasserIn: Landon, Mark,
• Place / Publishing House: Oxford : : Archaeopress Publishing Ltd,, [2016]; ©2016
• Year of Publication: 2016
• Edition: 1st ed.
• Language: English
• Physical Description: 1 online resource (xii, 199 pages) :; illustrations

This book presents the first large-scale comparative study of Iron Age coin mould. Iron Age minting techniques reveal a great deal about Iron Age political organisation and economy that has, until now, remained largely unreported.

Table of Contents

Cover -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Contents -- Chapter 1 -- Starting point -- 1 The background to this study -- 2 What is coin mould? -- Chapter 2 -- Figure 1.1: The Ford Bridge mint trench. -- Figure 1.2: In situ coin mould at Ford Bridge. -- Figure 1.3: Presumed method of using pellet mould. -- The Literature -- Chapter 3 -- Recording coin mould: aims and methodology -- A Aims -- B Methodology -- C Resolving the theories into testable propositions -- D Coin Mould Recording Protocol -- E Database Key version 2.6 -- Chapter 4 -- Figure 3.1: A completed record card, front and back. -- Figure 3.2: 'Verulamium' form tray. -- Figure 3.3 Verulamium form tray from Merlin Works, Leicester -- Figure 3.4: 'Puckeridge' form tray. -- Figure 3.5: I-section profile -- Figure 3.10: 'Angled section' profile -- Figure 3.11: 'Rolled edge' profile -- Figure 3.6: An experimental 'box-mould' with one open end. -- Figure 3.7: 'Lazy S' Profile -- Figure 3.8: An experimental 'bowl-mould' with one open end. -- Figure 3.9: 'Straight section' profile. -- Figure 3.12: 'Overhang' profile. -- Figure 3.13: 'Cut and tear' banding. -- Figure 3.14: Results of an experiment to produce 26 holes with a controlled depth of 5mm. -- Figure 3.15 Comparing the average depth and standard deviation for four experimental trays attempting to achieve a hole depth of 5mm. -- Figure 4.1: Average number of holes in rows and columns for fragments with more than 5 holes. -- The Henderson Collection (Braughing) coin mould assemblage -- 1 General observations -- 2 Tray forms -- 3 Edge Profiles -- 4 Edge markings -- 5 Evidence of elaboration -- 6 Methods of hole manufacture -- 7 Predictable relationship between base and top hole diameters -- 8 Predictable relationship between base diameter and pellet module -- 9 Hole depth -- 10 Control of hole volume.

11 Calcium carbonate traces -- 12 Proportions of used and unused mould fragments -- 13 Grass marks, chaff marks and matting marks -- 14 Grain casts -- 15 Inclusions and tempers -- 16 Clay caps and luting -- 17 Conclusions -- Chapter 5 -- Figure 4.2: Tray average thickness in the Henderson Collection expressed as percentages. -- Figure 4.3: Comparing composition - position types expressed as percentages of the total number of individually listed fragments. -- F igure 4.4: Record-card diagram of fragment HC/30 -- Figure 4.5: Edge profile distribution. -- Figure 4.6: Average intra-fragment standard deviations in three hole parameters compared - How careful were the mould-makers? -- Figure 4.7: Variability in relationship between top and base hole diameters in the Henderson Collection and the Ford Bridge assemblages expressed as percentages of the number of holes in each assemblage exhibiting both measurements. -- Figure 4.8: Top diameter distribution in the Henderson Collection -- Figure 4.10: Fragment average base diameter distribution in the Henderson Collection expressed graphically. -- Figure 4.11 : Intra-fragment diameter variation in fragments with 2 or more measurable diameters -- Figure 4.12: Fragment average hole depths in the Henderson Collection -- Figure 4.9: Fragment average base diameter distribution in the Henderson Collection. -- Figure 4.13: Fragment average hole depths in the Henderson Collection expressed as percentages. -- Figure 4.14: Hole size variation in the Henderson Collection tabulated. -- Figure 4.15: Average hole volume plotted against average hole base diameter. -- Figure 4.16: Average intra-fragment total variation in three hole parameters in the Henderson Collection compared with experimentally generated data. -- Figure 5.1: Average thickness measurements from the Ford Bridge assemblage compared with study averages.

Figure 5.2: Fragment average thicknesses expressed as percentages. -- The Ford Bridge (Braughing) assemblage -- 1 General observations -- 2 Tray forms -- 3 Edge profiles -- 4 Edge markings -- 5 Evidence of elaboration -- 6 Methods of hole manufacture -- 7 Predictable relationship between base and top hole diameters -- 8 Predictable relationship between hole base diameter and pellet module -- 9 Hole Depth -- 10 Control of hole volume -- 11 Calcium carbonate traces -- 12 Proportions of used and unused mould fragments -- 13 Grass marks, chaff marks and matting marks -- 14 Grain casts -- 15 Inclusions and tempers -- 16 Clay caps and luting -- 17 'Raised platform' mould -- 18 Conclusions -- Chapter 6 -- Figure 5.3: Verulamium form pediment with horizontal incised guideline. Note the deformation of the apex hole. -- Figure 5.4: Edge profile distribution. -- Figure 5.5: Band and lines edge marking -- Figure 5.6: Mould lining mark, possibly made by bast or bark -- Figure 5.7: Possible Puckeridge form fragment with 17mm diameter holes and an incised guideline. -- Figure 5.8: Hole slighting in two axes - arrows show the characteristic flattening -- Figure 5.10: Top diameter distribution. -- Figure 5.9: Variability in relationship between top and base hole diameters in the Ford Bridge Assemblage -- Figure 5.11: Base diameter distribution by percentage. -- Figure 5.12: Homogenous base diameter distribution. Context 00 forms the first cluster, context 03 the second, and the extended third cluster is formed from contexts 04 -- 06 -- 09 and VH. -- Figure 5.13: Fragment average hole depths -- Figure 5.14: Fragment average hole depths expressed as percentages -- Figure 5.15: Base diameter plotted against volume -- Figure 5.16: Variation within hole size groups tabulated. -- Figure 5.17: Chalk wash in mould holes, approximately 1.5mm thick at the base.

Figure 5.18: Signs of extreme heating - Ford Bridge and Puckeridge compared. -- Figure 5.19: Grass marks on tray base. -- Figure 5.20: Grain cast in hole base (Frag. BRR/03/096). -- Figure 5.21: Key to Figures 5.22 and 5.23. -- Figure 5.22: Inclusions and tempers from Ford Bridge (BRR) and Puckeridge (PUC) expressed as % of total inclusions + tempers for each site. -- Figure 5.23: Chalk and shell tempers from Ford Bridge (BRR) and Puckeridge (PUC) expressed as % of individually recorded fragments. -- Figure 5.24: Moulded platform fragment (Frag. BRR/06/006). Note vesiculation. -- Figure 6.1: High-peaked Verulamium form tray fragment -- The PuckeridgeAssemblage -- 1 General observations -- 2 Tray Forms -- 3 Edge Profiles -- 4 Edge markings -- 5 Evidence of elaboration -- 6 Methods of hole manufacture -- 7 Number of holes in a tray -- 8 Predictable relationship between base and top hole diameters -- 9 Predictable relationship between hole base diameter and pellet module -- 10 Hole depth -- 11 Control of volume -- 12 Calcium carbonate traces -- 13 The introduction of metal into holes -- 14 Proportions of used and unused pellet mould -- 15 Grass marks, chaff marks and grain casts -- 16 Inclusions in mould fabric -- 17 Clay caps or luting? -- 18 Raised platform mould -- 19 Conclusions -- Chapter 7 -- Figure 6.2: Puckeridge form tray (PUC/Box 2/0008) -- Figure 6.3: Edge profile distribution in the Puckeridge assemblage -- Figure 6.4: 'Lines and banding' edge marking -- Figure 6.5: Lateral and double horizontal incised guidelines -- Figure 6.6: Boustrophedon hole making revealed by slighting -- Figure 6.7: The distribution of differences between top and hole base diameter in the Puckeridge assemblage. -- Figure 6.8: Distribution of intra-fragment variation in the difference between top and hole base diameters.

Figure 6.9: Hole top diameter distribution. -- Figure 6.10: Fragment mean hole base diameter distribution. -- Figure 6.11: Fragment mean hole base diameter distribution expressed graphically -- Figure 6.12: Mean intra-fragment variation in base diameter (in mm) correlated with fragment size. -- Figure 6.13: Fragment average hole depths in the Puckeridge assemblage. -- Figure 6.14: Scatter graph plotting base diameter in mm against volume in mm3 -- Figure 6.15: Range and distribution of volumes in the Puckeridge assemblage. -- Figure 6.16: Calcium carbonate wash. Arrow shows incised guideline. -- Figure 6.20: Evidence of trays adhering during heating -- Figure 6.21: Occlusion of mould hole by heat-induced slumping -- Figure 6.22: Two fragments melted together after breakage: a second heating episode? -- Figure 6.23: Evidence of heat applied by tuyère? A 'plume' of differential heating on the top surface of a fragment. -- Figure 6.24: Grain cast on a tray base -- Figure 6.25: Large pebble inclusion -- Figure 6.26: Partial clay caps -- Figure 6.27: Intact clay cap -- Figure 6.29: Possible luted hole from Puckeridge -- Figure 7.1: Concordance attempting to reconcile Landon numbering with Cowell and Tite indexing. -- Figure 7.2: Average number of holes in rows and columns for fragments with 5 holes or more. -- The Wickham Kennels assemblage -- 1 General observations -- 2 Tray forms -- 3 Edge profiles -- 4 Edge markings -- 5 Evidence of elaboration -- 6 Methods of hole manufacture -- 7 Predictable relationship between base and top hole diameters -- 8 Predictable relationship between base diameter and pellet module -- 9 Hole depth -- 10 Control of hole volume -- 11 Calcium carbonate traces -- 12 Proportions of used and unused mould fragments -- 13 Grass marks, chaff marks and matting marks -- 14 Grain casts -- 15 Inclusions and tempers.

16 Clay caps and luting.