the Arabs in the 8th century again brought desolation on the land, which was aggravated by continual misgovernment till the conquest of Algeria by the French in 1833.
The chief towns of Numidia under the Romans were: in the north, Cirta, the capital, which still retains the name Constantine given it by Constantine; Rusicada on the coast, serving as its port, on the site now occupied by Philippeville; and east of it Hippo Regius, well known as the see of St Augustine, near the modern Bona. To the south in the interior were Theveste (Tebessa) and Lambaesis (Lambessa) with extensive and striking Roman remains, connected by military roads with Cirta and Hippo respectively. Lambaesis was the seat of the legion III. Augusta, and the most important strategic centre, as commanding the passes of the Mons Aurasius, a mountain block which separated Numidia from the Gaetulian tribes of the desert, and which was gradually occupied in its whole extent by the Romans under the Empire. Including these towns there were altogether twenty which are known to have received at one time or another the title and status of Roman colonies; and in the 5th century the Notitia enumerates no less than 123 sees whose bishops assembled at Carthage in 479.
For bibliography and account of Roman remains, see under Africa, Roman.
NUMISMATICS (Lat. numisma, nomisma, a coin; from the Greek, derived from νομίζειν, to use according to law), the science treating of coins (Low Lat. cuneus, a die) and medals (Low Lat. medalla, a small coin).
The earliest known coins were issued by the Greeks in the 7th century before the Christian era. By the 4th century the whole civilized world used money (q.v.), each state generally having its proper coinage. This has continued to be the case to the present time; so that now there are few nations without a metal currency of their own, and of these but a small proportion are wholly unacquainted with the use of coins.
Coins, although they confirm history, rarely correct it, and never very greatly. The earliest belong to a time and to nations as to which we are not otherwise wholly ignorant, and they do not afford us that precise information which would fill in any important details of the meagre sketch of contemporary history. We gain from them scarcely any direct historical information, except that certain cities or princes issued money. When in later times the devices and inscriptions of the coins give more detailed information, history is far fuller and clearer, so that the numismatic evidence is rarely more than corroborative. There are, indeed, some remarkable exceptions to this rule, as in the case of the Bactrian and Indian coins, which have supplied the outlines of a portion of history which was otherwise almost wholly lost. The value of the corroborative evidence afforded by coins must not, however, be overlooked. It chiefly relates to chronology, although it also adds to our knowledge of the pedigrees of royal houses. But perhaps the most interesting manner in which coins and medals illustrate history is in their bearing contemporary, or nearly contemporary, portraits of the most famous kings and captains, from the time of the first successors of Alexander the Great to the present age, whereas pictures do not afford portraits in any number before the latter part of the middle ages; and works of sculpture, although occupying in this respect the same place as coins in the last-mentioned period and under the Roman empire, are neither so numerous nor so authentic. There is no more delightful companion in historical reading than a cabinet of coins and medals. The strength and energy of Alexander, the ferocity of Mithradates, the philosophic calmness of Antoninus, the obstinate ferocity of Nero, and the brutality of Caracalla are as plain on the coins as in the pages of history. The numismatic portraits of the time following the founding of Constantinople have less individuality; but after the revival of art they recover that quality, and maintain it to our own day, although executed in very different styles from those of antiquity. From this last class we can form a series of portraits more complete and not less interesting than that of the ancient period.
While coins and medals thus illustrate the events of history, they have an equally direct bearing on the belief of the nations by which they were issued; and in this reference lies no small part of their value in connexion with history. The mythology of the Greeks, not having been fixed in sacred writings, nor regulated by a dominant priesthood, but having Mythology. grown out of the different beliefs of various tribes and isolated settlements, and having been allowed to form itself comparatively without check, can scarcely be learned from ancient books. Their writers give us but a partial or special view of it, and modern authors, in their attempts to systematize, have often but increased the confusion. The Greek coins, whether of kings or cities, until the death of Alexander, do not, with a few negligible exceptions, represent the human form. Afterwards, on the regal coins, the king’s head usually occupies the obverse and a subject, usually sacred, is placed on the reverse. The coins of Greek cities under the empire have usually an imperial portrait and a reverse type usually mythological. The whole class thus affords us invaluable evidence for the reconstruction of Greek mythology. We have nowhere else so complete a series of the different types under which the divinities were represented. There are in modern galleries very few statues of Greek divinities, including such as were intended for architectural decoration, which are in good style, fairly preserved, and untouched by modern restorers. If to these we add reliefs of the same class, and the best Graeco-Roman copies, we can scarcely form a complete series of the various representations of these divinities. The coins, however, supply us with the series we desire, and we may select types which are not merely of good work, but of the finest. The mythology of ancient Italy, as distinct from that of the Greek colonies of Italy, is not so fully illustrated by the coins of the country, because these are for the most part of Greek design. There are, however, some remarkable exceptions, especially in the money of the Roman commonwealth, the greater number of the types of which are of a local character, including many that refer to the myths and traditions of the earliest days of the city. The coins of the empire are especially important, as bearing representations of those personifications of an allegorical character to which the influence of philosophy gave great prominence in Roman mythology.
Coins are scarcely less valuable in relation to geography than to history. The position of towns on the sea or on rivers, the race of their inhabitants, and many similar particulars are positively fixed on numismatic evidence. The information that coins convey as to the details of the history of towns and countries has a necessary connexion with geography, Geography. as has also their illustration of local forms of worship. The representations of natural productions on ancient money are of special importance, and afford assistance to the lexicographer. This is particularly the case with the Greek coins, on which these objects are frequently portrayed with great fidelity. We must recollect, however, that the nomenclature of the ancients was vague, and frequently comprised very different objects under one appellation, and that therefore we may find very different representations corresponding to the same name.
The art of sculpture, of which coin-engraving is the offspring, receives the greatest illustration from numismatics. Not only is the memory of lost statues preserved to us in the designs of ancient coins, but those of Greece afford admirable examples of that skill by which her sculptors attained their great renown. The excellence of the designs of very many Greek Art. coins struck during the period of the best art is indeed so great that, were it not for their smallness, they would form the finest series of art-studies in the world. The Roman coins, though at no time to be compared to the purest Greek, yet represent not unworthily the Graeco-Roman art of the empire. From the accession of Augustus to the death of Commodus they are often fully equal to the best Graeco-Roman statues. This may be said, for instance, of the dupondii struck in honour of Livia by Tiberius and by the younger Drusus, of the sestertii of Agrippina, and of the Flavian emperors, and of the gold coins of Antoninus Pius and the two Faustinas, all which present portraits of remarkable beauty and excellence. The Italian medals of the Renaissance are scarcely less useful as records of the progress and characteristics of art, and, placed by the side of the Greek and Roman coins, complete the most remarkable comparative series of monuments illustrating the history of the great schools of art
