¹ Mack, R. P., The Coinage of Ancient Britain (second edition, London 1964), No. 96.Google Scholar

² Sydenham, E. A., The Coinage of the Roman Republic (London 1952), No. 738Google Scholar (c. 82-1 B.C.): dates of issues have been corrected to accord with Crawford, M. H., Roman Republican Coin Hoards (London 1969).Google Scholar

³ Mack, Nos. 251, 253.

⁴ Sydenham, Nos. 1352-3 (c. 43-2 B.C.).

⁵ Mack, No. 239.

⁶ Sydenham, No. 1140 (c. 39 B.C.). The reverse of the Cunobelin coin, depicting Hercules, shows a woman seated upon a quadruped. This might be a bull and the subject the abduction of Europa, as depicted on a coin of L. Volumnius L. f. Strabo, Ibid. No. 743 (c. 82 B.C.).

⁷ Mack, No. 123.

⁸ Mattingly, H. and Sydenham, E. A., The Roman Imperial Coinage, I. Augustus to Vitellius (London 1923), Augustus No. 373 (prior to 27 B.C.).Google Scholar

⁹ Mack, No. 131. Also the reverse of a silver coin of Cunobelin, ibid. No. 259. The type is probably taken from an As of Agrippa said to be amongst the commonest issues of the reign of Tiberius. Mattingly and Sydenham, p. 101, Tiberius No. 32 (c. A.D. 23-32).

¹⁰ Mack, Nos. 163, 227, 246, 247, 310; compare with Mattingly and Sydenham, Augustus No. 327 (c. 14-12 B.C.).

¹¹ Mack, No. 308. Mattingly and Sydenham, Augustus No. 47 (19-18 B.C.).

¹² Mack, No. 249. Mattingly and Sydenham, Augustus No. 42 (19-18 B.C.). The British coin differs slightly in detail from its putative numismatic prototype and (to anticipate our argument) it may be closer to certain gems: cf. Chiesa, G. Sena, Gemme del Museo Nazionale di Aquileia (Aquileia 1966), No. 686, which is probably of Augustan date. Note that all datings in this publication are based on stylistic criteria and sometimes the evidence for them is thin. I have accepted or modified Sena Chiesa's suggestions as I have thought fit.Google Scholar

¹³ E.g. Mack, Nos. 13:, 238, 242, 308. Sydenham, passim.

¹⁴ Toynbee, J. M. C., Art in Britain tinder the Romans (Oxford 1964), 31.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Allen, D., ‘The Belgic Dynasties of Britain and their coins’, Archaeologia xc (1944), 28.Google Scholar

¹⁶ For the relationship between gems and coins in Roman art cf. Vollenweider, M. L., Die Steinschneidekunst und Ihre Künstler in Spätrepublikanischer und Augusteischer Zeit (Baden-Baden 1966), passim.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Blanchet, A., Traité des Monnaies Gauloises (Paris 1905), 363.Google Scholar Cf. Tour, H. de La, Atlas de Monnaies Gauloises (Paris 1892), pl. xxx No. 7589.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Blanchet, op. cit. (note 17), 190-1, figs. 39, 41. For the hippalectryon type on gems cf. Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), Nos. 1006—9 and Boardman, J., Engraved Gems; The Ionides Collection (London 1968), 35 and 98, Nos. 50-1.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Mack, No. 238.

²⁰ Evans, J., The Coins of the Ancient Britons (London 1864), 312–3.Google Scholar

²¹ Mattingly and Sydenham, Augustus No. 25 (c. 27-20 B.C.).

²² Allen, D., ‘Belgic Coins as Illustrations of Life in the late pre-Roman Iron Age of Britain’, PPS xxiv (1958). 58, n. 3.Google Scholar

²³ Not published. In His Grace the Duke of Wellington's Silchester Collection, Reading Museum (Ac. No. 03022).

²⁴ Mack, Nos. 241a, 248.

²⁵ Furtwängler, A., Königliche Museen zu Berlin. Beschreibung der Geschnittenen Steine (Berlin 1896), No. 8157. The gem is probably ascribable to the early empire. Apollo sits on a pile of stones rather than on an altar.Google Scholar

²⁶ Bieber, M., The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age (revised edition, Columbia University press, New York 1961), 110–11.Google Scholar

²⁷ McDowell, R. H., Stamped and Inscribed Objects from Seleucia on the Tigris (Ann Arbor 1935), 74. No. at and pl. in (Archive B).Google Scholar

²⁸ Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), Nos. 68-71. For the later copying of motifs cf. Henig, Martin, ‘The Veneration of Heroes in the Roman Army’, Britannia i (1970), 251–2.Google Scholar

²⁹ Mack, No. 241a. Allen, , PPS xxiv, pl. x No. 78.Google Scholar

³⁰ Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), Nos. 68-71.

³¹ Furtwängler, op. cit. (note 25), No. 3479. A yellow jasper intaglio said to be from an English site (British Museum, Ac. No. 51. 4-29. 2), shows a nude Apollo holding a serpent which is rising from a tripod, placed on top of an altar (not dated); but note the gem from Aquileia, which depicts a seated nude Apollo facing an altar, and which can be dated to Augustan times (Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), No. 72).

³² Ibid., No. 54. Boardman, J., Engraved Gems; The Ionides Collection (London 1968), 18 and 93, No. 14.Google Scholar

³³ Allen, , PPS xxiv (1958), 62 and pl. x No. 78.Google Scholar

³⁴ Mack, No. 248. Allen, , PPS xxiv (1958), pl. VII No. 56.Google Scholar

³⁵ Mack, No. 287. Allen, , PPS xxiv (1958), pl. VII No. 57. It is possible that this is derived from the Cunobelin piece, and presents merely a debased version of his reverse type; but note remark on beards infra.Google Scholar

³⁶ Boardman, J., Archaic Greek Gems (London 1968), No. 267Google Scholar. Zazoff, P., Etruskische Skarabäen (Mainz 1968), 78 and pl. XXVII No. 124.Google Scholar

³⁷ Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), No. 972. Zazoff, P., Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Kassel. Antike Gemmen (Kassel 1969), 17 No. 29 and pl. XI figs. 62–3Google Scholar. Maddoli, G., ‘Le Cretule del Nomophylakion di Cirene’, Annuario Scuola Archeologica di Atene xli–xlii (1965) 40–145Google Scholar, No. 670. This must be earlier than the Jewish revolt of A.D. 115 when the record office was destroyed. Furtwängler, op. cit. (note 25), Nos. 7691-4. Richter, G. M. A., Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Catalogue of Engraved Gems, Greek, Etruscan and Roman (Rome 1956), No. 435Google Scholar. Brandt, E. and Schmidt, E., Antike Gemmen in Deutschen Sammlungen i, part 2 (Munich 1970), Nos. 746, 1617–9, of Roman Republican date.Google Scholar

³⁸ Proc. Suff. Inst. Arch. xxi (1933), 249, No. 12, from Whitton, Ipswich. Other examples from Cirencester (Ac. No. C 308); Rockbourne Villa, Hants., and Harlow temple, Essex.Google Scholar

³⁹ For sculptors, Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), Nos. 940-2, 973, 975-7.

⁴⁰ Mack, No. 254. Allen, , PPS xxiv (1958), pl. v No. 43.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Bieber, M., The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age (revised edition, Columbia University press, New York 1961), 140 and figs. 577-80.Google Scholar

⁴² There is a paste from Verulamium, probably to be associated with the short military phase, following the Roman conquest, cf. Henig, , Britannia i (1970), 258. Also Furtwängler, op. cit. (Note 25), Nos. 1312-3, 4178. Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), No. 485.Google Scholar

⁴³ Zazoff, P., Etruskische Skarabäen (Mainz 1968), 130Google Scholar and pl. L No. 2G3. Richter, G. M. A., Engraved Gems of the Greeks and the Etruscans (London 1968), No. 870.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Mack, Nos. 260, 260a. Allen, , PPS xxiv (1958), pl. VII Nos. 68–9.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ibid., 61-2.

⁴⁶ Evans, J., The Coins of the Ancient Britons (London 1864), 339–41Google Scholar and pl. XII No. 10. Toynbee, op. cit. (note 14), 32. However cf. La Tour, H. de, Atlas de Monnaies Gauloises (Paris 1892), No. 5044 for a priest holding a head, on a coin of the Aedui.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Furtwängler, op. cit. (note 25), No. 4240; also Brandt and Schmidt, op. cit. (note 37), Nos. 1415-7, of Roman Republican date.

⁴⁸ Richter op. cit. (note 43), No. 855; cf. also Brandt, E., Antike Gemmen in Deutschen Sammlungen i part 1 (Munich 1968), No. 409Google Scholar, a hellenistic gem of the early third century B.C. For coins of Argos showing Perseus holding the head of Medusa see Gardner, P., Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Peloponnesus (London 1887), 150–3Google Scholar, Nos. 160, 166, 175; see also F. Imhoof-Blumer and P. Gardner, A Numismatic Commentary on Pausanias (reprinted from JHS vi–viii (1885-1887)Google Scholar, new edition Chicago 1964), 35 No. 8 and pl. 1 figs. 17-20. Also note Walters, H. B., Catalogue of the Terracottas in the British Museum (London 1903), No. D 602, for an early Imperial terracotta plaque.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Mack, No. 240. Allen, , PPS xxiv (1958), pl. VII Nos. 58–61.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Steiner, P., Xanten. Sammlung des Niederrheinischen Altertums-Verrins (Frankfrut a.M. 1911), 133 and pl. XIV No. 149.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Ibid., 133 and pl. XIV No. 147. For another huntsman shown on a pre-Claudian gem from Magdalensberg (Noricum), see Carinthia I clix (1969), 341–4 No. 2.Google Scholar

⁵² Steiner, op. cit. (note 50), 123 and pl. XIII No. 54, from Vetera I. Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), Nos. 357-62 (Nos. 359-60 are of Augustan date). Maddoli, op. cit. (note 37), No. 116, which is not Ares as stated.

⁵³ Note a black jasper set in an iron ring from a late first-century A.D. context at Wall, Staffs. It is badly damaged but shows a male figure walking right, with a pole over his shoulder from which the day's bag is suspended. The intaglio is described as a paste, but not identified, in Proc. Birmingham Arch. Soc. lxxiv (1958), 24–5Google Scholar No. 2. Steiner, op. cit. (note 50), 133 and pl. XIV No. 146 is very similar. A much later intaglio (nicolo paste) from Corbridge shows a huntsman bringing home a deer which is hanging from a similar pole, Charlesworth, D., ‘Roman Jewellery found in Northumberland and Durham’, Arch. Ael. fourth ser., xxxix (1961), 32 No. 10 and pl. IX No. 6.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Vollenweider, op. cit. (note 16), 43 and pl. XXXVIII No. 1 (by Anteros, late first century B.C.). Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), No. 477.

⁵⁵ Richter, op. cit. (note 43), Nos. 156 and 822. Minto, A., Il Vaso François (Florence 1960), 156Google Scholar and pl. XXI. On early Roman gems cf. Henig, , Britannia i (1970), 256Google Scholar (intaglio from Waddon Hill, Dorset). Babelon, E., Intailles et Camées. Collection Pauvert de la Chapelle (Paris 1899) No. 101Google Scholar (found near the Fucine Lake, Italy). Furtwängler, op. cit. (note 25), Nos. 643-6; also No. 647 = Zwierlein-Diehl, E., Antike Gemmen in Deutschen Sammlungen ii (Munich 1969), No. 402. Brandt and Schmidt, op. cit. (note 37), Nos. 1335-40 (Roman republican date).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Mack, No. 192. Allen, , PPS xxiv (1958), pl. VII No. 53. The obverse of the coin bears the legend Tasc Dias; conceivably this piece, struck at Verulamium, should be ascribed to a son of Tasciovanus.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Mack, No. 242. Allen, , PPS xxiv (1958), pl. VII No. 52.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Ibid., 60; cf. Imhoof-Blumer, F. and Keller, O., Tier- und Pflanzenbilder auf Münzen und Gemmen des Klassischen Altertums (Leipzig 1889), 69Google Scholar and pl. XI No. 45; for the centaur on the coin of Cunobelin, which may be compared very favourably with centaurs shown on Greek coins, Ibid., Nos. 42-4.

⁵⁹ Steiner, op. cit. (note 50), 124 and pl. XIII No. 65 from Vetera I. Also Ibid., No. 64, possibly from Zazoff, Vetera. P. (ed.), Antike Gemmen in Deutschen Sammlungen iii (Munich 1970), 118 No. 295 (first century A.D.); also note a gem in the Ashmolean (not catalogued). Cades, Impronti No. 11. A. 527, for a cameo bearing the same theme.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Bailey, C. J., ‘A Sea-Centaur Engraved Gem from the Romano-British site at “Walls”, Puncknoll, Dorset’, Proc. Dorset M.H. and Arch. Soc. xc (1968), 230–1Google Scholar (for a gem, possibly of first or second-century date). Richter op. cit. (note 43), No. 367 (Greek, fifth century B.C.). A centaur holds a drinking-horn on the Pashley Sarcophagus (second century A.D.), cf. Budde, L. and Nicholls, R., A Catalogue of the Greek and Roman Sculpture in the Fitz William Museum, Cambridge (Cambridge 1964), 100 and pl. LIV NO. 161.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Mack, No. 234a.

⁶² Sydenham, No. 429 (c. 150-125 B.C.).

⁶³ Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), No. 419. Maddoli, op. cit. (note 37), No. 321. For other examples, probably later in date, Furtwängler, op. cit. (note 25), No. 3328. Richter, G. M. A., Metropolitan museum of Art, New York, Catalogue on Engraved Gems, Greek, Etruscan and Roman (Rome 1956), No. 399.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Mack, No. 173.

⁶⁵ Ibid., No. 181.

⁶⁶ Ibid., No. 237.

⁶⁷ Toynbee, op. cit. (note 14), 33. The relevant Augustan coins are Mattingly and Sydenham, Augustus No. 14 (cistophoros), Nos. 43-4 (aurei). For the cistophori cf. Sutherland, C. H. V., The Cistophori of Augustus (London 1970), 90–9 and pls. XVII-XIX.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Mack, Nos. 260, 260a (this is the reverse of the ‘Perseus’ coin); also Ibid., No. 230 = Allen, , PPS xxiv (1958), pl. X No. 83 (here the sphinx wears a cap).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Sydenham, No. 983 (46 B.C.).

⁷⁰ Suetonius, Augustus, 50; Pliny, , N.H. xxxvii, 10Google Scholar; Dio Cassius, li, 3, 6; cf. Instinsky, H. U., Die Siegel des Kaisers Augustus (Baden-Baden 1962), 23–30Google Scholar and pl. III = Walters, H. B., Catalogue of the Engraved Gems and Cameos, Greek, Etruscan and Roman in the British Museum (London 1926), No. 3111, for probable type.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Boston Museum Bulletin lxiv (1966), 22Google Scholar and Richter, op. cit. (note 43), Nos. 359-60 (with recurving wings); Ibid., No. 361 (with swept-back wings). The type with recurving wings is shown on the coinage of Chios, Kraay, C. M., Greek Coins (London 1966), 356Google Scholar and pl. CLXXX Nos. 605-6: These are dated respectively to the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. but the motif remains constant ‘until Chian coinage ceased in the third century A.D.’; cf. Poole, R. S., Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum: Ionia (London 1892), 328–46Google Scholar, for a conspectus of this coinage.

⁷² I am very grateful to Mr. Alec Down for allowing me to illustrate it here in advance of full publication. The type of the ‘sphynx-like figure’, said to have been depicted on a gem from Colchester, inscribed θEPMIA, is not recorded, cf. Arch. Journ., x (1853), 350Google Scholar and Ibid., xxxiv (1877), 79.

⁷³ Sena Chiesa op. cit. (note 12), No. 1221: Ibid., No. 1224 is ascribed to the following century. Napolitano, A. M., ‘Gemme del Museo di Udine di probabile provenienza Aquileiese’, Aquileia Nostra xxi (1950), 39Google Scholar No. 33. Gerra, C., ‘Area Gemmis quae compta coruscat’, Studi in onore di Calderini e Paribeni iii (Milan 1956), 778–9Google Scholar No. 1. Richter, G. M. A., Metropolitan museum of Art, Mew York, Catalogue of Engraved Gems, Greek, Etruscan and Roman (Rome 1956), No. 391Google Scholar. Imhoof-Blumer, F. and Keller, O., Tier- und Pflanzenbilder auf Münzen und Gemmen des Klassischen Altertums (Leipzig 1889), 159Google Scholar and pl. XXVI Nos. 38-9. Fossing, P., The Thorvaldsen Museum. Catalogue of the Antique Engraved Gems and Cameos (Copenhagen 1929), No. 1541. Probably all of these date to the first century B.C. or to the first century A.D.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Sena Chiesa op. cit. (note 12), No. 1223 (first century B.C.); 1217-20 (beginning of the first century A.D.). A fine paste from the fort of Melandra, Derbyshire, now in the Museum at Buxton, is datable to the first century A.D. Conway, R. S., Melandra Castle (Manchester 1906), 113 and pl. opp. 112, fig. 2. In style it is very close to the paste in the British Museum (note 70).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Mack, Nos. 260, 260a, are closely comparable to Sena Chiesa op. cit. (note 12), Nos. 1225-6 (first century B.C.) and to Steiner op. cit. (note 50), 134 and pl. XIV No. 155; also 144 and pl. XV No. 66, both of which may be from Vetera I. Fossing op. cit. (note 73), No. 1549.

⁷⁶ Catalogue of the Southesk Collection of Ancient Gems formed by James, Ninth Earl of Southesk, i (London 1908), No, H.5 and pl. VIII.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Mack, No. 159 (also note the reverse of No. 160).

⁷⁸ Sydenham, No. 773 (c. 82 B.C.). This type is also found on gems: Sena Chiesa op. cit. (note 12), No. 1210 (first century B.C.). Also note an intaglio from Bath: Martin Henig in Cunliffe, B. W., Roman Bath (London 1969), 84Google Scholar No. 22. Gaulish coins sometimes depict griffins, e.g. Tour, H. de La, Atlas de Momaies Gauloises (Paris 1892), No. 7078 (Aulerci Eburovices); 7687, 7690-1 (Meldi).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Mack, No. 258.

⁸⁰ Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), 29, ‘Officina del Pegaso’. Note especially pl. LXXXIV Nos. 1212, 1230, 1499. The technique was derived from ‘a globolo’ gems and not limited to this one workshop.

⁸¹ Mack, No. 225.

⁸² Borlase, W., Antiquities, Historical and Monumental of the County of Cornwall (second edition London 1769), 342 and pl. XXVIII, fig. 11.Google Scholar

⁸³ Nanstallon cannot stand alone but must be one of a series of early forts in the south-west.

⁸⁴ Banded agates and pastes are found on early Julio-Claudian sites on the continent, for example at Nijmegen: Maaskant-Kleibrink, M., ‘A Glass Gem from the Gastra at Nijmegen’, Bulletin Van de Vereeniging tot bevordering der Kennis van de Antieke Beschaving te 'sGravenhage, xliii (1968), 70–4Google Scholar. This is the first such specimen known to me from the British Isles. The description makes it clear that the intaglio is not a green jasper as stated in the report on gems from Bath (Henig in Cunliffe, B. W., Roman Bath (London 1969), 84 No. 22).Google ScholarPubMed

⁸⁵ Mack, Nos. 229 (possibly running), 256 (standing).

⁸⁶ For a running griffin with serpent below, Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), Nos. 1209 and 1211 (the latter dated to the middle or second half of the first century B.C.).

⁸⁷ Mack, No. 234.

⁸⁸ Toynbee, op. cit. (note 14), 33.

⁸⁹ Babelon, E., Intailles et Carmées. Collection Pauvert de la Chapelle (Paris 1899), No. 137.Google Scholar Maddoli, op. cit. (note 37), No. 829. Ridder, A. de, Collection de Clercq vii (Paris 1911), No. 3235Google Scholar and Berry, B. Y., Ancient Gems from the Collection of Burton Y. Berry (Indiana 1969), No. 142, probably of late hellenistic date. For seated griffins seen partially from the front, Sena Chiesa op. cit. (note 12), No. 1207. Furtwängler op. cit. (note 25), No. 5877; Brandt and Schmidt op. cit. (note 37), Nos. 1921-2 (Roman Republican date).Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Mack, No. 253.

⁹¹ Ibid., No. 252.

⁹² Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), No. 1175; also Ibid., No. 1177. For other Roman gems, Walters, op. cit. (note 70), Nos. 2307-8. Fossing, op. cit. (note 73), No. 1292. Brandt, op. cit. (note 48), No. 539 (ascribed to the first half of the second century B.C.). For a resting lioness, Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), No. 1180 (first century B.C.). None of these compositions includes a tree. For a standing lion, with a tree appearing in the background, Berry, op. cit. (note 89), No. 175. Middleton, J. H., Catalogue of the Gems in the FitzWilliam Museum (Cambridge 1891), No. 74.Google Scholar

⁹³ Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), No. 1093. Walters, op. cit. (note 70), No. 2391. Richter, G. M. A., Metropolitan museum of Art, New York, Catalogue of Engraved Gems, Greek Etruscan and Roman (Rome 1956), No. 519. Story-Maskelyne Sale Catalogue (1921), No. 186 pl. III. AH the above depict sows; for a boar cf. Furtwängler, op. cit. (note 25), Nos. 5421-2. On these two pastes which can be ascribed to the first century B.C. the tree is positioned in the background, behind the animal's left flank, as on the coin and unlike the other intaglios where the tree is to the rear of the beast and in the foreground.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Notes 7 and 8. For lions on Gaulish coins, Tour, H. de La, Atlas de Monnaies Gauloises (Paris 1892), No. 10380 (Baiocasses) and 8086 (Bellovaci).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Mack, Nos. 189, 191, 305, 316a, 316c.

⁹⁶ Sydenham, Nos. 1160, 1163 (c. 43-31 B.C.), but note gems such as Vollenweider, op. cit. (note 16), 69 and pl. LXXVII, No. 6 (by Hyllos, first century B.C.); Brandt, op. cit. (note 48), No. 539 (second century B.C.).

⁹⁷ Brandt and Schmidt, op. cit. (note 37), No. 1935. Richter, op. cit. (note 43), No. 376. Maddoli, op. cit. (note 37), No. 742.

⁹⁸ Proc. Somerset Arch. Soc., lvi (1960), 60Google Scholar and pl. opp. 55, No. 21: compare it, for style, with a panther on an intaglio from Aquileia, Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), No. 1181; also note a sphinx (which has a patterning on the wings similar to the shading on the body of the Ham Hill panther), Ibid., No. 1221.

⁹⁹ Ibid., No. 1179 (ascribed, on stylistic grounds, to the end of the first century A.D., but shape suggests earlier dating). Compare this gem with an intaglio from Bath, certainly of the Flavian period (Henig in Cunliflfe, B. W., Roman Bath (London 1969), 84 No. 21).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Mack, No. 181.

¹⁰¹ Ibid., No. 223 (bronze of Cunobelin) and No. 291 (bronze of Dubnovellaunus). Boars are very common on Gaulish coins, e.g. Tour, H. de La, Atlas de Monnaies Gauloises (Paris 1892), Nos. 6309 (Carnutes) and 7352 (Veliocasses).Google Scholar

¹⁰² Sydenham, No. 775 (c. 76-71 B.v.). There are, however, similar intaglios, for example an onyx in an iron ring from a grave in the Vallais, dated to the middle of the first century A.D. Ur-Schweiz, xxviii (1964), 34 and fig. 24, 1. Also note Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), No. 1092 (not dated) and Brandt and Schmidt, op. cit. (note 37), No. 882 (first century B.C.).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Mack, No. 115.

¹⁰⁴ Ibid., No. 263a.

¹⁰⁵ Wheeler, R. E. M., London in Roman Times (London 1930), 101–2Google Scholar and fig. 30 No. 23. Berry, B. Y., Ancient Gems from the Collection of Burton Y. Berry (Indiana 1969), No. 174 shows a boar with a tree behind its left flank; Brandt and Schmidt, op. cit. (note 37), No. 887 (probably a sow, first century B.C.).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Mack, No. 183a.

¹⁰⁷ Milne, J. G., ‘Ptolemaic Seal Impressions’, JHS xxxvi (1916), 88Google Scholar and pl. IV No. 1; Maddoli, op. cit. (note 37), Nos. 702-7, 713; Ridder, A. de, Collection de Clercq vii (Paris 1911), Nos. 3265–6; Furtwängler, op. cit. (note 25), Nos. 5482-7; Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), Nos. 1064, 1067 (first century B.C. to first century A.D.).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Mack, Nos. 314-5.

¹⁰⁹ Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), Nos. 1228-9, also Ibid. No. 1227 (third century B.C.).

¹¹⁰ Nicolo in the City Museum, Bristol. Ac. No. F 2359.

¹¹¹ Mack, No. 316. Allen, in B.N.J. xxxiv (1965), 6, states that ‘the coin must belong to the same general series as those of Tincommius and Verica, the sons of Commius’. However, the obverse seems to me to be reminiscent of certain issues of Tasciovanus (Mack, Nos. 173-4) which would suggest a connection with the Catuvellaunian series as well as with that of the Atrebates. Personally, I am not convinced that ‘A’ and Amminius are two distinct persons: certainly a very fine example of the Amminius hippocamp issue has been found far to the west of Chichester at Waddon Hill, Dorset. Amminius was a son of Cunobelin.Google Scholar

¹¹² Martin Henig in Cunliffe, B. W., Excavations at Fishbourne 1961-1969 ii (London 1971), 88–9, No. 2.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Mack, Nos. 185, 199, 235.

¹¹⁴ Sydenham, Nos. 691-3 (90-79 B.C.).

¹¹⁵ Mack, Nos. 178, 313.

¹¹⁶ Mattingly and Sydenham, No. 111 (c. 18 B.C.).

¹¹⁷ But gems depicting Pegasi are common, and no more unlikely to have been used as models than intaglios that figure sphinxes: cf. Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), Nos. 1212-5; Steiger, R., ‘Gemmen und Kameen im Romermuseum, Augst’, Antike Kunst ix (1966), 30 and pl. VIII No. 1 (c. first century B.C.).Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Mack, Nos. 203-13.

¹¹⁹ Ibid., Nos. 234-5, 250.

¹²⁰ The vine-leaf found on Verica's gold issues (Ibid., Nos. 124-5) is also the subject of certain intaglios, e.g. Sena Chiesa op. cit. (note 12), No. 1413; Brandt and Schmidt, op. cit. (note 37), Nos. 2097-8 (first century B.C.). The plant on the obverse of a silver coin of Amminius, Mack, No. 313, could be a fruiting palm-tree, cf. Maddoli, op. cit. (note 37), No. 950, or some similar device, Ibid., No. 948.

¹²¹ Amongst other types, the dolphins on the reverse of Mack, No. 241a, deserve a brief mention. The obverse of this coin has been discussed above, and seems to have a glyptic derivation. The formal composition of the reverse does not resemble that of many gems, but dolphins are common in glyptic art. An unpublished cornelian from the fort at Great Casterton, Rutland, was lost shortly after the Roman conquest and a plasma from Richborough, Kent (Bushe-Fox, J. P., Richborough iv (London 1949), 125 and pl. xxxv No. 90) is probably of the same date. Also note Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), Nos. 1403-5.Google Scholar

¹²² Mack, No. 129, which depicts a caduceus standing between cornucopiae, may be taken from a denarius type of Mark Antony, Sydenham, No. 1189 (c. 40 B.C.) as Allen, , PPS xxiv (1958), 60 and pl. x No. 80, states; but it is interesting to note that the globe shown on the Roman coin has become a vase such as frequently appears on engraved gems. Furtwängler, op. cit. (note 25), No. 6152; Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), Nos. 1431-3. Maddoli, op. cit. (note 37), No. 1000.Google Scholar

¹²³ The relevant comparisons are Mack, No. 234 (Cunobelin) with No. 288 (Dubnovellaunus)— crouching griffin. Note the shape of the wings and their strong outlines. In both cases the creature rests on a panel, but on the Kentish coin the legend has been debased to a zig-zag pattern (silver coins). No. 252 (Cunobelin) with No. 289 (Dubnovellaunus). The sow on the Cunobelin issue has become a boar on that of Dubnovellaunus, but a tree can be seen behind each animal. The panels on which they appear are inscribed CAMU in one case and DUBNOV in the other. No. 253 (Cunobelin) with No. 290 (Dubnovellaunus)— lions. Beneath each is an inscribed panel (legend CAM on the former, DUBNOV on the latter (bronze coins)). Although the differences are greater, also note the two smiths, No. 248 (Cunobelin) and No. 287 (Dubnovellaunus). In this case there is a difference in material, the Catuvellaunian coin being of bronze, and the other of silver; also it is not clear as in the other cases that there is a line of stylistic debasement between the two; and finally the Cunobelin coin was struck at his Verulamium mint.

¹²⁴ Res Gestae xxxii, 1.

¹²⁵ Cf. B.N.J. xxxiii (1964), 1–6Google Scholar; Ibid., xxxvi (1967), 1-7; and xxxvii (1968), 1-6. He is dealing with the coins (mainly bronze) from the Harlow temple but he shows conclusively that the ‘Camu(lodunum)’ coins and the ‘Tasciovani Filius’ coins come from different mints, i.e. Camulodunum and Verulamium.

¹²⁶ Henig in Cunliffe, B. W., Roman Bath (London 1969), 71–88. Also note that individual Aquileia studios were selective in their choice of subjects. For example, of the ‘Officina della Fortuna’ Sena Chiesa writes ‘II repertorio è limitato a figure di divinita, del tiaso dionisico e di personificazioni’; Sena Chiesa, op. cit. (note 12), 52 and passim.Google ScholarPubMed

¹²⁷ We should not be surprised. Richter, op. cit. (note 43), 23 notes that ‘Between coins and gems there is … the fundamental difference that the coins were so to speak the official seals of the state, while the gems were private property’.

¹²⁸ Wyss, R., ‘The Sword of Korisios’, Antiquity xxx (1956), 27–8. ‘The punch-mark shows a palm-tree symmetrically flanked by two horned animals rampant … eating from the tree. This heraldic design … was probably derived from an ancient classical intaglio.’ Cf. also the two Gaulish coins mentioned above.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹²⁹ Vollenweider, M. L., ‘Un Symbole des Buts Politiques de César’ Genava N.S. xviii (1970), 49–61, especially 53 (Heius—a gem-engraver who seems to have designed coins for Caesar).Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Ross, A., ‘A Celtic Intaglio from Caistor-St-Edmund’, Norf. Arch, xxxiv (1968), 263–71. On this intaglio see further below, pp. 293-96 and PL. XXIIIb.Google Scholar

¹³¹ Allen, , ‘The Coins of the Iceni’, Appendix G, Britannia i (1970), 24.Google Scholar

¹³² Wild, J. P., in Antiquity, xl (1966), 139–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar and pl. XXIII, but cf. H. Hodges's reply, Ibid. 308 and Wild's re-assertion, 309. The matter has now been taken further by Allen, D. F. in Hill, D. and Jesson, M. (eds.) The Iron Age and its Hill-forts (Southampton 1971), 127–48. He concludes ‘Perhaps we should deduce that the makers [of British potin coins] at least at one stage were literate, being familiar with papyrus and the stylus’.Google Scholar

¹³³ Maddoli, op. cit. (note 37) for clay sealings from Cyrene which survived through being baked in a fire that consumed the public record office of the city.

¹³⁴ Hawkes, C. F. C. and Hull, M. R., Camulodunum (London 1947), 168–201 and Toynbee, op. cit. (note 14), 42-4.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Stead, I. M., ‘A La Tène Burial at Welwyn Garden City’, Archaeologia cl (1967), 1–62; D. P. S. Peacock, ‘Roman Amphorae in pre-Roman Britain’ in Hill and Jesson, op. cit. (note 132), 161-88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³⁶ Laver, P. G., ‘The Excavation of a Tumulus at Lexden, Colchester’, Archaeologia lxxvi (1927), 241–54 and Toynbee, op. cit. (note 14), 39-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³⁷ Laver, op. cit. 249 and pl. LVIII, figs. 1-2.

¹³⁸ Ibid., 249 and pl. LVIII, fig. 4.

¹³⁹ Strabo, iv, 5, 33.