KIMMERIDGE COAL-MONEY. 179 



their diameter from one and a-half to two and a-half inches ; they 

 are pierced on both surfaces, one having one, two, three or four 

 holes, which do not penetrate very deep ; there is only one central- 

 hole on the other side. The two faces are never of the same 

 dimensions ; the one bearing the central hole is invariably the 

 smaller of the two. This difference varies with the thickness of 

 the piece, which, when considerable, gives it the appearance of a 

 truncated cone. The face on which the square hole is pierced, as 

 well as that on which there are two or three smaller round holes, 

 shows how they were attached to the mandril of the lathe. The 

 sides of the coal-money are usually marked with sharp-cut lines, 

 where the cutting instrument met the piece in its revolutions on 

 the wheel. Those having a single square hole are generally 

 marked with three or four straight lines, which reach to the 

 circumference, but do not correspond with the angles, giving the 

 impression that the distal or piercing end of the mandril was smaller 

 in diameter than the proximal end ; thus the workman's ad- 

 justing marks became less and less conformable with the edges of 

 the square the deeper the mandril penetrated. Where there are 

 three holes they are arranged equilaterally and the three lines meet 

 at the angles. Pieces with two or four holes are comparatively rare. 

 One of the earliest notices of coal-money, perhaps, is in the Gentle- 

 man's Magazine for 1768, where it is described as being generally 

 found on the tops of the cliffs, two or three feet below the surface, 

 enclosed between two stones set edgeways, and covered with a third, 

 the enclosure containing a quantity of pieces of coal-money, mingled 

 with a few bones of animals. The writer adds that they are 

 occasionally found in the adjoining lands, near the surface, but only 

 where the ground has been made. Antiquarians even in those early 

 days considered them to be relics of the Roman period, but whether 

 amulets or money they were not agreed. The writer further adds 

 it is not probable that they were amulets, for the amulets described 

 liy Mr. Camden differ from the coal-money both in form and 

 material, being chiefly globular, or cubical, with a hole pierced 

 through them ; while those described by Mr. Stukely were of 



