( >*p ) 
and the two following Characters for a double U ; 
and fo the whole to be only an Abreviation of the 
Word millefimo. But as I think it muft be a x, for 
the Reafons given already, and do not remember ever 
to have met with fuch a double //, I can’t but efteem 
the other the true Reading. And yet (till, I believe, 
this Date may claim the Preference of being the 
oldeft of the Sort that has hitherto been difcovered. 
The Antiquity afcribed to the ColcheJIer Date, 
namely 1090, has, it feems, been occafioned by a 
Miftake in the Copy ; for the o in the Place of 
Hundreds fhould have been made a 4, by drawing 
down an oblique Stroke on each Side from the 
Bottom, which makes it 1490, before which Time 
the 4 had long received that Shape. See Tab. II. 
Fig. 1. lam obliged for this Information to James 
IVeft,Yj{<\\ a worthy Member of this Society, and well 
skilled in our Britijh Antiquities, who himfelf per- 
ceived the Miftake in viewing the Original. 
As to the Date from Wtdgel-Hall, which gave 
Occafion to this Enquiry, it feems to me plainly 
intended to exprefs the Year 1000, and no more, 
by the Roman 90 in the Efcutcheon on the right 
Side. For the Characters in the other Efcutcheon 
cannot, I think, ftand for Figures, but muft be the 
initial Letters of two Names I. G. as W. R. in the 
Helmdon Date ; and were very probably defigned 
in both to denote the Perfons who ereCted thofe 
Buildings. The Omiftion of a Character in the 
Place of Hundreds, is ftill an Argument with me, 
that thefe two laft were not made for Figures. But. 
what I imagine puts the Matter paft all Doubt, is 
the want of Evidence that the Figure 6 had received 
R x . that 
