[ 88 ] 
word is apparently equivalent to ROMA, and con- 
fequently the piece itfelf muft be deemed an uncia, 
or Rips uncialis, of Rome, though the globule, or 
> uncial mark, has not efcaped the ravages of time. 
That the piece in queftion is an uncia of Rome, 
^appears not only from the legend on the reverfe, as 
juft obferved, but likewife from another uncia of 
Rome, with the full face of the fun upon it, as 
here, though done in the more modern Roman 
^afte, now in my fmall colledion. That uncia is 
likewife, I doubt not, in feveral (17} other colledti- 
onsi being, as I apprehend, a pretty common coin. 
The fame conclulion is likewife deducible from 
another Roman uncia, with the word ROMA, juft 
above (See Tab. III. n. 6.) the prow of the Ihip, on 
the reverfe, in the very fame fituation as the Etrul- 
can legend on the weight before me, in my little 
• cabinet. We may therefore fafely enough pronounce 
the coin here'deferibed a ftips uncialis of Rome, of 
-a very remote antiquity, with the Etrufean name of 
..that capital of the world on the reverfe. 
The Etrufean letters were, undoubtedly, the firft 
alphabetic charaefters of Italy. Nay, they prevailed 
at Rome, and in every part of Italy, till after the 
regifuge. This I have fully proved in a Latin (18) 
(17) Scipionis MafFeii Origin. Etrufe. & Latin, p. 6i. Tab. 
' II. Old. II. n. ii. Lipfiae, 1731. •Annib. degli Abati Olivieri in 
‘Indice Delle Antichijf. Monete di Bronzo Rotnane lA Italich. ubi 
-•fup. p. 53. In Pefaro, 1757. See Have rc, in Rom. Tab. III. n. 4. 
(18) De Prifeis Romanorum Literis Dijfertat. Oxon. 1746. 
, Many curious particulars are deducible from the point here in- 
filled upon. To omit others that occur, from hence it plainly 
follows, that tliofe infcriptions on the Eugubian tables confifting 
of Latin letters, or the more mpdern charadlers of Italy, /are 
. * diftertatlon, 
