Catalog
Why register? Just to keep bots out of our catalog. Your email stays private - we will never share it or send you anything uninvited. We guarantee you that!
| Issuer | Catuvellauni and Trinovantes tribes (Celtic Britain) |
|---|---|
| Year | 1-10 |
| Type | Log in to see details |
| Value | Log in to see details |
| Currency | Log in to see details |
| Composition | Log in to see details |
| Weight | Log in to see details |
| Diameter | Log in to see details |
| Thickness | Log in to see details |
| Shape | Log in to see details |
| Technique | Log in to see details |
| Orientation | Variable alignment ↺ |
| Engraver(s) | Log in to see details |
| In circulation to | Log in to see details |
| Reference(s) | Log in to see details |
| Obverse description | A stylised horse prances to the right within a beaded border, rendered in the Celtic decorative tradition with abstracted, curvilinear forms. Above the horse's back, a branched or floral ornament rises into the upper field, while a geometrically stylised device appears to the right of the animal. The composition is enclosed within a prominent rope or cable border encircling the entire design. The imagery reflects the late Iron Age British artistic vocabulary characteristic of Catuvellaunian coinage. |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Log in to see details |
| Obverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Reverse description | Log in to see details |
| Reverse script | Log in to see details |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Edge | Plain |
| Mint | Log in to see details |
| Mintage | Log in to see details |
| Additional information |
The Catuvellauni and Trinovantes were rival tribes for much of the late Iron Age, but by the early first century AD they had effectively merged under Cunobelinus, whose expanding authority over southeast Britain prompted Strabo to describe the region as Rome's most productive source of grain, cattle, gold, silver, and slaves. Bronze units of this type circulated within that tributary economy. The "Rues" inscription remains incompletely explained — possibly a place name, possibly a mint signature — and the question has not been resolved to any numismatic consensus.