Richard Gough’s second edition of Camden’s Britannia describes a gold Roman coin-ring found at ‘Benningworth’ (now known as Benniworth, in East Lindsey, Lincolnshire).Footnote 1 The discovery, presumably made in the first half of the eighteenth century, was fortuitous in that the ring was found by a maidservant who had ‘gathered it up with some clay in her pattens, as she was walking across the fields’.

Gold coin-rings are extremely rare finds; only four such rings are known from Britain,Footnote 2 and thirteen from the rest of the western provinces.Footnote 3 The peak in production of gold coin-rings dates to the first half of the third century and they were made by constructing a hoop around the coin, which acted as an elaborate bezel. These rings were of considerable value, for the ring cost at least as much again as the value of the gold coin when the cost of the gold hoop and the jeweller’s time was added in.

A few coin-rings are known from Britain made of copper alloy, but this form of jewellery is largely confined to gold jewellery set with gold coins. The fact that most of the rings have a military or official distribution supports the idea that these rings are thought to have belonged to wealthy officials and associates of the military.Footnote 4 The location of Benniworth does not fit this distribution pattern well: the nearest military and official centres are Horncastle, c 15km to the south, Caistor, c 25km to the north, and Lincoln, c 26km to the west. However, the prehistoric route over the Wolds now known as High Street passes through the parish of Benniworth and joins the walled towns of Caistor and Horncastle, which may have some bearing on the findspot. Other finds of Roman date from Benniworth include a scatter of Roman pottery and a coin of Crispus (ad 317–26).Footnote 5

According to Gough, the Benniworth coin-ring was shown by Mr Wray to the Society of Antiquaries in 1765. The ‘Mr Wray’ referred to by Gough was presumably the antiquary Daniel Wray, FSA. Gough describes the ring as follows:

The ‘Mons. Grosley’ referred to by Gough as having identified the coin was Pierre-Jean Grosley (1718–85), a member of the respected Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres in Paris, who visited London in 1765 and published an account of his experiences, A Tour to London, in 1770.

Grosley’s description of the coin includes contradictory evidence. Firstly, the legend pont sept cos ii does not match any known obverse legend. The closest match is to Geta (211–12), some of whose coins have the obverse legend p sept geta caes pont. Septimius Severus is another possibility, some of whose coins have the obverse legend imp cae l sep sev pert avg cos ii. On other coins set in rings, the inscriptions are often obscured by the ring mount, so the reading pont sept cos ii could well be incorrect. Even so, the obverse legends on coins of Probus are variations on the form imp [c m avr] probvs [p f] avg, and it is difficult to see how to reconcile that with pont sept cos ii. Probus and Geta are also very different in appearance and so it is unfortunate that no description of the facial features was given. Probus is nearly always bearded and wears a radiate or laureate crown, whereas Geta is more youthful in appearance and wears a laureate crown or no crown at all.

Grosley’s description of the coin as having ‘a figure with a great cross in its hand’ most closely matches fifth- or sixth-century solidi, which commonly have a figure of Victory holding a labarum, or cross, on the reverse. These coins were copied during the sixth century by the Visigoths, Merovingians and Burgundians, who all struck ‘pseudo-imperial’ gold tremisses displaying the bust of an emperor on the obverse and, most commonly, a figure of Victory holding a cross on the reverse. Since these coins also carry nonsensical legends, it is unlikely that any would have read pont sept cos ii.

Whilst it is possible that the coin was a contemporary copy of a third-century aureus or fifth-century solidus, the description sounds more like a misreading of a genuine aureus of Geta, probably due to the ring mount obscuring parts of the legend on the obverse and entirely covering the legend on the reverse. On many coins of Geta, pont [p] sept can be read together if the coin is read starting at three o’clock, and co[s ii] could plausibly be a misreading of ge[ta caes]. The fact that the production of gold coin-rings peaks in the Severan dynasty (ad 193–217) supports the suggestion that the coin is an aureus of Geta, as does the fact that no gold coin-rings are yet known to date from ad 268–313, which cover the period during which Probus reigned.