character, that it is either wholly impossible, or at all events extremely difficult, to ascertain the original coins after which they are wrought. The Runic inscriptions which are frequently introduced in the margin, have afforded but little explanation, since it has not as yet been possible to interpret the many peculiar Runic characters of which the inscriptions consist. In general however we may assume with confidence that the coins of Eastern Rome and Arabia have furnished the original of these imitations. Roman and Oriental coins themselves were also used for ornaments of this kind, when furnished with a border and a loop. Gold bracteates have been found of various sizes, from half an inch to six inches in diameter. In general they occur either in connection with several similar ones, so that they must originally have formed whole necklaces, or they are found with different kinds of beads.
As such beads formed a very favourite ornament in ancient times, and also deserve a peculiar degree of attention, on account of their nature and construction, we shall here introduce a more detailed account of them. The most simple are of amber and burnt clay, the others of rock crystal, cornelian, gold, silver, or some other metal; the latter being usually very thin, and filled within with clay; they were also constructed of glass, and finally of mosaic, as it was termed. At the period which we are considering glass could scarcely have been manufactured in the North. It must have been
Mundesley, in January, 1846, and was then in the possession of Miss Gurney, but has since been presented by her to the British Museum, which previously possessed three similar specimens, also described by Sir H. Ellis.
In the Journal of the Archæological Association, vol. ii. p. 314, will be found a description and engraving of a very curious bracteate fibula, obtained from a barrow in the parish of Ottley, Norfolk, about twelve years ago. It is of bronze patinated; and from the resemblance which the figure upon it bears to that upon the seal of Richard Constable of Chester, in the time of Stephen, or that upon the coins ascribed to Robert, earl of Gloucester, the illegitimate son of Henry I., Mr. Fairholt is inclined to conclude that it is a work of the same period.Would not the fact of coins being thus used as ornaments, and not as money, seem to indicate their rarity at the period when they were so employed?—T.
