Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER IX.

AMONG COINS.

It is a popular error that coins were unknown in Britain at the time of Cæsar's invasion. This opinion of course takes its origin from the passage -"Utuntur aut ære aut annulis (taleis) ferreis ad certum pondus examinatis pro nummis," which occurs in the description of Britain given in the "Commentaries on the Gallic War." "Not only, however, is the passage corrupt," says Mr. Evans,* the best authority on the subject, “but Mr. Hawkins has shown that in a great number of MSS. the words aut nummo aureo' occur after "ære;" so that it would, after all, appear probable that, so far from Cæsar affirming that there were no coins in Britain at the time of his invasion, he expressly mentions a British currency of gold coins. The contrary opinion has, however, been supposed to derive additional support from two passages in the letters of Cicero, whose brother

*The Coins of the Ancient Britons," 1864.

accompanied Cæsar in his second expedition against Britain. In writing to Trebatius he makes use of the expression—'In Britanniâ nihil esse audio neque auri neque argenti.' And, again, he writes to Atticus: Neque auri scrupulum esse ullum in illâ insula.' But both the letters in which these passages occur are written in a jocose style, and the expression must be regarded as hyperbolical and significant of the disappointment felt at Rome on account of the small amount of booty resulting from the British expedition as compared with what was obtained in Gaul (though Strabo says it was considerable), rather than as authorizing the belief that not only was there no coinage in Britain at the time, but there was a total absence of the precious metals. So far, indeed, was Cicero himself from believing this to have been the case, that he qualifies the remark with an id si ita est;' and in his very next letter to Atticus he writes that he had heard from Cæsar of the submission of Britain

- nulla prædâ, imperatâ tamen pecunia.' And Cæsar himself, referring to the same subject, records that before leaving Britain-obsides imperat et quid in annos singulos vectigalis populo Romano Britannia penderet, constituit.' Dion Cassius calls this yearly tribute φόρου ετήσιου ; and Eutropius records that Julius 'Britannos stipendiarios fecit.' Suetonius also distinctly affirms, 'pecunias et obsides imperavit."

Taking all circumstances into consideration, and

carefully comparing one with another, Mr. Evans comes to the conclusion that we should not greatly err if we assign to the earliest British coins a date somewhere between 150 to 200 B.C. These are extended to a comparatively late period. British coins were made of gold, silver, and bronze, and have been found in various localities, sometimes in hoards, in most parts of the kingdom. It is, however, a curious fact that in some districts, Derbyshire for instance, which were not only inhabited by, but were strongholds of, the ancient Britons, no discoveries of coins are known. It would appear from this that some tribes used a currency, while others did not. The devices are rude adaptations, or rather imitations, of those upon Greek and, later, upon Roman coins; the principal model being the coinage of Philippus, which bore on one side the laureated bust of Apollo, and on the other a charioteer in a biga, with the name of Philippus beneath. These were copied more or less closely by the Gauls

O

A/

Fig. 216.

Fig. 217.

and Britons, and the gradual decadence of the original type may easily be traced by comparing a number of examples. Other devices, more purely British, were afterwards produced. Many of the

early coins are unifaced, i.e. one side is plain, while the other bears the device. They are usually

[graphic][subsumed][merged small]

slightly convex on one side, and concave on the other, and are, like their Greek prototypes, thicker in proportion to their size than are Roman coins. Some are inscribed, but others are not. Their

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

general character will be understood from the engravings.

Roman coins, which are "plentiful as blackberries" all over the land, were both imported to, and struck or cast in, this country. The study of the coins found here is therefore the study of the currency of the Roman empire. We have no traces of a Roman mint in this country until the time of Diocletian and Maximian, on some of which the letters LON and ML are supposed to signify

Londinium (London) and Moneta Londinensis (Money of London). The probability, however, is that coins were fabricated long before these, and without bearing any indication of the place where made. RS and RSR are supposed to indicate money struck at Rutupia (Richborough), as are also RSA, MRS (moneta Rutupiis signata), RSP (Rutupiis signata pecunia); C, MC, SC, MSC, and SPC in the same manner signifying Clausentum (Bittern), moneta Clausenti, signata Clausenti, moneta signata Clausenti, and signata pecunia Clausenti; M, MS, and MSP, Magna (Kenchester), and so on. Clay or terra-cotta moulds for casting coins, probably spurious ones, have been discovered in Yorkshire and other localities.

From the time when Claudius set his foot on our island, “a regular series of imperial coins, commemorative of victories in Britain by the emperors or their military commanders, was issued." Those of Claudius bearing a triumphal arch with the inscription DE BRITANN ("over the Britons"), and those of Hadrian with the inscription ADVENTVS AVG BRITANNIÆ ("the advent of the Augustus to Britain "), as well as those of the same emperor bearing the figure of Britannia with the word BRITANNIA, are well known, and those who desire to prosecute this subject will find much useful information in Akerman's "Coins of the Romans relating to Britain."

As I have said on another occasion, the Romans

« AnteriorContinuar »