whilst in every other instance in which an Emperor is named, we always have some one or other, warrants the suspicion, that the reference to the Emperor Claudius is erroneous. I am inclined to think that TI. CL. TR. are the initials of some private individual, such as those named in nn. (13) and (14).

We have an example of similar abbreviations on the medicine stamp found at Wroxeter in 1808. According to Mr. Wright's readings, Journal of Archæol. Assoc., vol. 1859, p. 317, the name of the empiric who prepared it, was TIB CL M・ i.e. Tib[erii] Cl[audii] Medici], but both reading and expansion seem very doubtful. In the Celt, Roman, and Saxon, p. 244, he read IBCLM, and thus Mr. Way and Dr. Simpson, the latter of whom proposes the expansion J[ulii] B[assi] CL[e] m[entis]. Similarly also we find the abbreviations of names on potters' work, in Fabretti, p. 503, and Orelli, ii., p. 372. It is of course impossible for me to surmise for what cognomen, according to this supposition, TR stands, but I suppose that it was such as Tr[ophimus] or Tr[ajanus] of which we have examples with Tiberius] Claudius].

On comparing nn. (3) and (14) a difference of order-LVT · BR. and BRIT LVT-is observable, but this is, I think, nothing more than the variety of collocation of the adjective, which is often found. I would read nn. (3) and (14) thus:—

Ti[berii] Claudii] Tr[****] Lut[**] Br[itannicum] ex arg[ent aria];

C[aii] Jul[ii] Proti Brit[annicum] Lut[**] ex arg[entaria].
We may now proceed to nn. (10) and (14).

IMP. CAES. HADRIANI. AVG. MET. LVT.

Imperatoris] Cas[aris] Hadriani Aug[usti] Met[alla] Lut[udensia.]

L. ARVCONI. VERECVNDI. METAL. LVTVD.

L[ucii] Aruconi[i] Verecundi Metal[la] Lutud[ensia].

Mr. Yates, p. 11, remarks: "Aruconius appears to be a name of British origin. Perhaps this Lucius had removed to Lutudar from Ariconium, the modern Weston in Herefordshire and an important mining station of the Romans." If there be any connexion between Aruconius and Ariconium, it seems more probable that the name of the place was derived from the name of the person than v. v.

Nn. (1) and (9) remain for consideration before we proceed to n. (4).

*N. (1) BRITANNIC** AVG II

Mr. Way, who was the first that noticed this pig, refers the inscrip tion to Britannicus, the son of Claudius, and assigns the date" about AD. 44-48." In confirmation of this reference it is stated by Mr. Way that "Mr. Franks, [who had opportunities of examining the block in the British Museum] informed him that the inscription may be read BRITANNIC:::: AVG F:: (Augusti filius)." Mr. Yates, p. 17, remarks: "On examining the object itself, I was satisfied that the last letters are FIL, which is the reading adopted by Mr. Roach Smith, and not II, or IMP, as other antiquaries have supposed. Hence, I conclude that the inscription, which is of unusual historical interest, may be thus restored:

BRITANNICI CLAVDII AVGVSTI FILII."

As the wood-cut, illustrating Mr. Way's remarks, presents II after AVG, I have so represented those letters in the copy which I have given, but I concur in Mr. Yates's reading and expansion.

N. (9) CAESAR***** VADON.

Mr. Smith, Journal of Archaeol. Assoc. v. p. 556, observes:

"Unfortunately the inscription, which originally had been well cut, has so perished from oxidation, that its restoration cannot with safety be proposed, especially as it exhibits a reading different from those of a similar description, which are yet preserved or on record. Camden mentions, that several of these pigs of lead had been found in Cheshire, inscribed IMP DOMIT· AVG GER DE CEANG, and IMP CAES DOMITIAN AVG COS.VII BRIG• One similar to the latter of these was found, in the last century, at Hayshaw Moor, in Yorkshire, and one on Hints Moor, near Tamworth, reading IMP. VESP· VII•T• IMP V COS DE CEANG. The specimen [bearing CAESAR ***** VADON]. was most probably inscribed to Domitian."

Mr. Smith justly regarded the restoration of the fragment as hazardous. In addition to its imperfection, it has peculiarities which are not found in the other extant inscriptions on pigs of lead. But there are no grounds, so far as I can see, for his reference of it to Domitian. The absence of IMP and AVG would certainly suit his position at one period of his life, but it is impossible to make out his name from the extant letters. DO are the first two letters, but they

On the side of this pig are the letters V'EIP C or, as they are otherwise read, V⚫ETPO or V.FTP.C, which, Mr. Way observes, probably denote its weight. The only ground for this opinion seems to be the occurrence of P, which may stand for Pondo. Can it be that the letters are V·EID'O, marking the time, scil. quinto (ante) idus Octobres?

are followed by a form which seems necessarily to be either N or VA.* I have myself nothing further to suggest than that it is possible that the last word may have been DOVA, another form of DEVA. We now proceed to n. (4), the inscription on the block represented in the subjoined woodcut.

In the Journal of the Archaeological Association, v. p. 227, Mr. C. Roach Smith offers the following remarks on it :

It is inscribed on the top, in letters an inch in length, NERONIS AVG. EX. KIAN IIII COS BRIT; on one side HVLPMCOS; on the other EX ARGENT and CAPASCAS; with the numerals XXX. This inscription is peculiarly interesting as referring to the Cangi at an earlier date [than on the pigs of the time of Vespasian and Domitian, A. W.] the name being spelt as pronounced, Kiangi, and just previous to the reverses of the Romans in Britain, from the courage and skill of the heroic Boadicea. Nero was the fourth time consul the year before; and this pig of lead would seem to have been on its way from the country of the Cangi towards the south, for exportation, composing probably part of the tribute, the harsh exaction of which was one of the causes of the insurrection. The Brit. must be considered as referring to the metal or the province, and not intended for Britannicus, as before observed on the Br. in the inscription of Claudius. The lateral marks are not altogether [at all?] to be satisfactorily explained, except the ex argent., which occurs in other instances and refers to the separation of the silver from the ore."

In Mr. Wright's Celt, Roman, and Saxon, p. 237, we have an additional observation by Mr. Smith on the inscription:

"As Nero never assumed the title of Britannicus, and as the numerals precede the cos, I suspect the inscription should be read

(Plumbum or Metallum) Neronis Aug. cos. iiii. Ex. Kian. Brit.

The PM Cos may belong to the above, and the rest be the name of some superintendent."

The obscurity of this singular inscription fully justified Mr. Smith's resort to conjecture, and the suggestions which he offers are, as usual

In the original, the transverse line is not in the same position as in N, but connects the other extremities of the perpendiculars, i.e. as if it were VA ligulate, without the bar of the A.

with him, worthy of consideration. But the tone of his remarks is likely to mislead; and perhaps did mislead Mr. Yates, when he regarded this inscription as "evidently referring to the Ceangi." Mr. Smith says that "this inscription is peculiarly interesting as referring to the Cangi at an earlier date, the name being spelt as pronounced, Kiangi." Now this statement, as to pronunciation and orthography at an earlier date, is wholly conjectural, without any authority to support it.

Nor is the suggested transposition of ex Kian. and iiii cos warranted by precedent, or at all probable. Moreover a very strong objection to Mr. Smith's reading is derived from the difference of the prepositions. In other blocks where the Ceangi are named we have the preposition de, whilst here we have ex. Again, in those other blocks we have Ceang., but here K is substituted for C, i for e, and g is omitted.

But if we give up the reading ex Kiangis, what solution is there of the difficulty? The only conjecture which I can offer on the subject is, that the words EX KIAN express a date, scil. EX · K[ALENDIS] IAN[VARIIS].

It is scarcely necessary to say, that there are examples of K IAN. being used for Kalendis Januariis: and the only inquiry which seems necessary, relative to this reading, is as to the reason of the date being stated in the inscription.

We know from Pliny xxxiv., ch. 17, that there was a law prohibiting more than a limited production of lead in Britain-ne plus certo modo fiat-and it seems probable to me that with a view to this law, the blocks, at least in some reigns, bore marks of the time at which they were made, so that it might be known what blocks were manufactured, and consequently what quantity of lead was produced during the year. The mention of the consuls, or not unfrequently of one, especially the Emperor, was, as is well known, the recognised mode among the Romans of distinguishing the year. But it may be asked -why mention Kalendis Januariis when that day was commonly known to be the first of the consular year? To this it may be answered that it was not uncommon for the Emperors to enter on the consulship at different periods of the year. and hence it may have been necessary to specify in this case the date of the commencement of the Emperor's fourth consulship. Another reason, peculiar to Nero, for this specification, may be, that it conveyed a flattering reference to his having rejected the proposition of the Senate, that

the year should begin with the month of December, in honor of his birthday--the 15th of December. Tacitus Ann. xiii. 10, notices this fact:" Quamquam censuissent patres ut principium anni inciperet mense Decembri, quo ortus erat, veterem religionem Kalendarum Januariarum inchoando anno retinuit."

Such forms as IIII COS, instead of COS IIII-a transposition which Mr. Smith notices-are rare but both forms seem to have been used.

In Henzen, n. 6770, we have :-DOMITIANO TICOS, VESPAS. X COS, DOMIT · VIIII · COS, DOMIT · XIIII COS, NERVA II COS. It may, however, be inferred, as I think, when the numeral is placed before instead of after COS, that the date of the inscription is not during but after the expiration of the consulship.

BRIT I regard as standing for BRIT[ANNICVM], as is common, and agreeing with lutum or it may be metallum understood. The pig was, most probably, thus marked to distinguish it as the product of Britain, from others manufactured elsewhere, as in Spain.

We now proceed to consider the lateral inscriptions. Mr. Smith reads these marks as HULPMCOS on one side, and EX ARGENT· and CAPASCAS with the numerals XXX on the other; and thus they were also read by the writer in the Gentleman's Magazine, liii. p. 936. In the Monum. Hist. Brit. they are given :

HUL P M CO, EX ARGE N

CAPA OC? IV

XXX

and from the wood-cut it seems probable that some letters are effaced before IVLPMCOS. In such uncertainty regarding the true readings, it might, perhaps, be more judicious for me to follow Mr. Smith's example in the Journal, and leave them as I found them. But as in such cases even an attempt may be useful, I venture to offer some suggestions. From IVL and COS, I draw the conjecture, that there may be a reference to the circumstance, that Nero held his fourth consulship only for six months. His colleague in that year (A.D. 60) was Cornelius Lentulus, and in their places Velleius Paterculus and Pedanius Salinator were suffecti on the Calends of July. See Borghesi, Bull. Inst. Archæol. 1846, p. 174, and Henzen, 5407. This conjecture leads to another, that the date mentioned here indicates the end, as ex Kalendis Januariüs denoted the beginning of the