Search

The square piece of linen cloth (pl. iv) which I propose to discuss in this note was acquired by V. S. Goleniščev in Egypt some years ago, and forms part of his splendid collection of Egyptian antiquities, which was subsequently incorporated into the Alexander III Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow, now the State Museum of Fine Arts. Years ago I reproduced and discussed it in a short paper (Monuments of Alexander III Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow iv, 1913, 149–153 (in Russian) and pl. xxiv in colour) in which I interpreted it as a military vexillum. My paper remained, however, unnoticed by students of military antiquities. For example, in 1923, so careful and well-informed a scholar as Kubitschek (P-W s.v. ‘Signa’ 2337 f.) in speaking of the inscriptions which appear on the vexilla, after quoting Cassius Dio xl, 18, and Vegetius ii, 13, says: ‘andere Bestätigungen haben wir nicht, und (fast darf man sagen: selbstverständlich) ist auch kein vexillum erhalten.’

In a paper published in the I9I7 volume of this Journal, pp. 59 ff., I attempted to make available for the general student the results of some recent research on coins. The present paper is designed to continue the task thus begun.1 It follows the same plan and is subject to the same restrictions. General principles are stressed, while for details reference is made to the special publications noted on pp. 263, 264. Only the imperial issues, not the purely local or provincial, are considered. The lengthy period included in our present survey may be conveniently divided into three parts: (A) from Vespasian to the death of Commodus. (B) from Septimius Severus to the accession of Valerian. (C) from Valerian and Gallienus to Diocletian. (A) At the death of Vespasian the mints of Rome were bearing the main burden of coinage. The imperial mint for gold and silver was working quite alone, while the Senatorial for aes2 was assisted only by a branch mint at Lugdunum. The activity of this Gallic mint apparently hardly extended into the reign of Domitian, and Rome was then left in possession of an unchallenged supremacy in coinage. No substantial change of system can be traced during the whole of the first period. Occasions for local coinage were by no means lacking-the German and Dacian wars of Domitian, the Dacian and Parthian wars of Trajan, the provincial journeys of Hadrian, the Parthian war of Verus and the Danube campaigns of Marcus Aurelius, the revolt of Avidius Cassius in the East at once come to the mind; but, in the main, with the exception of quite a few issues to be discussed immediately, the coinage preserves a uniformity of style and fabric which incline us to attribute it to one centre only. The longer one studies coits the less is one anxious to assert that the last word has been said about any branch of them. Intensive study may reveal differences undetected as yet by the eye or perhaps even unguessed by the mind. But, apart from the strong impression of uniformity made by the coins themselves, there are one or two considerations which bear strongly in the same direction: (a) There is good reason for thinking that series of coins were

The history of art in the Roman period is the history of the interplay of two opposite tendencies. On the one hand there is the Roman taste for realism and accurate representation, combining with the Italian love of naturalism; on the other, the fostering of the Greek tradition of idealism in art both by the Greek artists who worked at Rome and by the Greek enthusiasts among their Roman employers. After the culmination of Roman historical art under the Flavians and Trajan, the second century, as is well known, was marked by a great reaction in favour of things Hellenic, and it is with one small part of the Greek revival under Hadrian and the Antonines, when Greek art blossomed afresh for the last time during the history of the ancient world, that I propose to deal in this paper.

What the Roman tradition, literary and artistic, has to tell us of the heavenly spheres is of Greek and Oriental origin, and it would be futile to go behind hellenized Rome: early Roman religion, though it had an extensive worship of heavenly gods, ignored the universe entirely. An examination of the Etruscan tradition leads to different conclusions. It offers, roughly speaking, three larger complexes to such an examination. One is the bronze model of a liver from Piacenza, used for extispicy and divided into many sections. The second is the doctrine about lightning, mainly to be found in Pliny and Seneca. The third is a list of gods, distributed among the sixteen regions of the heavens, in Martianus Capella (fourth-fifth century A.D.). The aim of this paper in its first part is to analyse this third complex (with occasional reference to the other two).

The Roman polychrome mosaic, which forms the subject of this paper, came to light on 12th September, 1963, at the village of Hinton St. Mary in northern Dorset, 1½ miles north of Sturminster Newton. The field in which the pavement lies is the property of Mr. W. J. White, general engineer, blacksmith, and welder, who recognized as Roman the tesserae revealed by the postholes that were being dug for the foundations of a building near his forge. Mr. White immediately reported the discovery to the authorities of the Dorset County Museum, Dorchester, and invited them to direct the clearance of the whole mosaic with the help of a group of local archaeologists and amateurs. Mr. R. A. H. Farrar, of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England), also took part in the work of clearance; and the vertical photographs reproduced here, of which Mr. White holds the copyright, were taken at his request by the Commission with the aid of an 18-foot gantry.

The purpose of this paper is to put forward a new interpretation of five rock-reliefs in the province of Fars, S. Persia, which have been held to commemorate the capture of the Emperor Valerian near Edessa in A.D. 260. These reliefs may be grouped according to the number of Romans present.

On the life of Poseidonios there is but little reliable information elucidating the theme of this paper. The probable years of his birth and death are 135 and 51 B.C. About his background nothing is known except that Apameia in Syria was his place of origin. In view of the mixed population of that country one might surmise the presence of non-Hellenic ethnical components in his ancestry, but nothing is known about this. He was a disciple of the stoic philosopher Panaitios of Rhodes, probably at Athens; afterwards he became himself the head of the stoic school in Rhodes, where he must have acquired the citizenship, for he acted as a magistrate (‘prytanis’) and as an ambassador of the city. Strabo's praise of the exemplary social-welfare work at Rhodes (14, 653) seems to be derived from Poseidonios; in any case it is characteristic of Poseidonios' interest in social problems (see below p. 48).

The republican art of Rome and Latium has been much neglected. Even the admirable article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica which is signed by one of our foremost scholars, the same writer's Companion to Roman Studies, and the article on Roman art in the Cambridge Companion to Latin Studies begin the subject of Roman art with Augustus, or give only the briefest of indications for what precedes; yet more can be done in the way of reconstructing a picture of the earlier period than most archaeologists suppose, and it is my purpose in the present paper to show how the fictile decorations from the early Latin temples can be used to this end. My examples are taken mainly from the collection of terracotta recently arranged in the new wing of the Museo di Villa Giulia. These form a homogeneous group from sites in the immediate vicinity of Rome, and they are exhibited as far as possible in chronological order, so that the development of this branch of art can be studied from its earliest manifestations to its decay in the last century of the republic, when terracotta decoration had to give way to the marble sculptures introduced in the wake of Hellenistic art.

In JRS LVI (1966) I gave a description of the Aoi Stena which was based on autopsy, and I discussed the campaigns of Rome against Philip V of Macedon in the years 200 to 198 B.C. In this paper I am concerned with the area farther north which Rome acquired in 229 B.C. and with the actions which took place there before 200 B.C. Many scholars have discussed Rome's early activities in Illyris but practically none of them has trodden the ground. My knowledge of most of the area may help me to advance more down-to-earth views of the extent of Rome's sector in Illyris and of Roman and Macedonian policies. I include some new evidence on the position of Dimallum.The salient feature of Central Albania is the belt of coastal plain which extends from north of Lesh (Lissus) to north of the Gulf of Valona (see fig. 1). The widest and richest part of this plain is in the Myzeqija, which extends southwards from Kavajë. The Myzeqija in particular is integral to the economy of Central Albania, the area which was called Southern Illyris in the third century B.C. The transhumance of sheep has always been practised in this part of the Balkans, and the coastal plain of Albania with months of very heavy rainfall in October and March affords exceptionally fine pasturage for the winter period.

The aim of this paper is to summarize the available information on the types of plough used in Roman Britain. There are a number of sources for such a study. Much of our knowledge of the basic structure of these early ploughs comes from the finely preserved Iron-Age examples which have been found in Scandinavian peat bogs. These also serve to supplement and clarify the most detailed surviving description of the Roman plough, which is given by Vergil in Georgics I. A few models of the Roman period have been found in Britain and Germany. Of major importance, of course, are the surviving parts of Romano-British ploughs (which are all, in fact, either shares or coulters), and material from Roman Europe can be used to amplify these. The Elder Pliny has a detailed, but difficult, section on the various types of share and occasionally he throws light on other aspects of the subject. Finally, a certain amount of information can be gained from comparisons with modern plough types.

It is the purpose of this paper to consider a few of the more outstanding contributions towards the solution of this familiar problem propounded since the publication in 1898 of Sir Samuel Dill's book on Roman Society in the last century of the Western Empire (2nd edn., 1899). It may well appear somewhat surprising that I should venture to speak on such a topic, since my own work, such as it is, has been concerned rather with the history of the Byzantine Empire. And yet for a student of Byzantine history the problem has a special interest: he is forced to consider that problem not merely as a West European issue, but rather to compare and contrast the historical development in the western and eastern provinces of the Empire. He is compelled to raise the question: why was it that the Roman Empire failed to survive in Western Europe while it endured for a further millennium in the East ? The very fact that he is primarily interested in the history of the Byzantine Empire enables him to approach the Western problem from a different angle and to treat that problem in a wider setting and not in isolation.

In their recent paper on theLimes Tripolitanus(JRSxxxix, 81–95), Mr. Goodchild and Mr. Ward Perkins have published an inscription from thecentenariumnow known as Gasr Duib, recording its erection in A.D. 244–246—when M. Iulius Philippus was emperor and his son of the same names still (nobilissimus)Caesar—and naming Cominius Cassianus as governor; and they note that the well-known governor of Numidia, M. Aurelius Cominius Cassianus, is customarily dated A.D. 208, so that ‘unless there has been an error in the reading of the consular names on the significant Lambaesis inscription, we can only conclude that the Cominius Cassianus of the Gasr Duib inscription was a son or relative of the earlier Legatus’ (op. cit. 92). It so happens that the customary dating can now be shown to be wrong, and the governorship in question can demonstrably be assigned to the decade A.D. 240–250 even without the assistance of the new discovery; and so many points of interest arise from a consideration of the evidence, that it seems worth while to set it forth at some length. At the same time, it seems desirable to put forward a revised list of the governors of Numidia from the accession of Severus in 193 to the time of Gallienus, under whom the last of the senatorial governors and commanders-in-chief of that province were appointed; for the list given by Pallu de Lessert is nowhere in need of such considerable revision as for that period, as a result of the fresh epigraphic evidence which has come to light in the past half-century. It will be convenient to take the case of identity first, and to deal with the succession of governors thereafter.

Introduction. 1 Until recent years it was believed that the Roman rule north of Cheviot did not long survive the recall of Agricola. Then, as a result of the excavation of the fort at Newstead, Sir George Macdonald advanced the view that the early occupation was prolonged into the principate of Trajan.2 Subsequently, in a period when excavation was out of the question, Sir George, in an important and valuable paper on 'The Agricolan Occupation of North Britain,' published in this _ournal in I92I, 3 reviewed the evidence then available from a number of Scottish sites: the sequence of structural changes, the coin-series, and (though the material was not considered in detail) the proportions of pottery assignable definitely to one or other of the two main periods of occupation. His conclusion was that the first occupation must have been nearly as prolonged as the second, lasting well into the principate of Trajan, and even perhaps into the early years of Hadrian. This view, though widely accepted, was not entirely free from difficulty; 5 and later researches have led Sir George Macdonald himself to modify his estimate of

In two papers published in 1933, ‘The Philippus in the West and the Belgic invasion of Gaul’ (Num. Chron. 1933, 88) and ‘The distribution of Gaulish and British coins in Britain’ (Antiquity 1933, 268), Dr. G. C. Brooke put forward, in explanation of the imitation in Gaul of the gold staters of Philip II of Macedon two centuries after their original issue, the theory that these coins were introduced into Central Gaul by the Romans about 120 B.C. when they came into contact with the tribes in that region, and that the Philippus had been ‘brought into normal currency in Rome’ in the second century B.C. after the arrival of great numbers of Philippi in the spoils of war from Greece and Asia Minor in the first half of that century. As Dr. Pink has pointed out, Dr. Brooke's date is several years too late to suit the literary evidence; but it need not be questioned that the gold stater of the type of Philip did not reach Gaul till long after the first issue in Macedon. That it came through Rome, however, does not seem to be supported by any archaeological facts, and involves a serious misconception of Roman monetary economics.

At the outset the question may well be raised whether there is any real justification for the inclusion of a paper on such a theme in the programme of a Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Is Byzantine civilisation—in any true sense of the word—Roman at all? To judge from not a few modern studies of the life of the East Roman Empire, the answer to that question could only be in the negative. Take what is perhaps the best known brief presentment of Byzantine history—that of Professor Diehl of Paris—and the reader will not long be left in doubt. The preface proclaims the character of the Empire: Byzantium very quickly became, and was essentially, an oriental monarchy. In the sixth century, before Justinian's accession, one could well believe that the dream of a purely oriental empire was near its realisation.

The task of this paper is, in part, an invidious one: for I shall have to begin by looking a gift-horse in the mouth. I shall have to question a group of opinions that link the rise of Christianity in Africa with a resurgence of the local culture of the area. This resurgence, it is said, explains not only the rapid collapse of Roman rule at the time of the Vandal invasion of 429, but the disappearance of Roman civilisation and of Christianity itself in Africa in the early Middle Ages.Discussion of this suggestion, however, tends to be jeopardised from the start because claims for the honour of being the resurgent local culture of Late Roman Africa have been enthusiastically advanced on behalf of two distinct and mutually-exclusive local cultures, associated with the two native languages—with Punic, on the one hand, and with ‘Libyan’ (which is often described by a convenient if perilous anachronism as ‘Berber’), on the other. What is more, these claims have been advanced by two equally distinct groups of scholars, handling different evidence. The evidence for the survival of Punic—or, so as not to prejudge the issue, of a lingua Punica—is literary: Augustine of Hippo and Procopius are the sole authorities for the period. The evidence for ‘Berber,’ by contrast, is largely confined to the interpretation of Libyan inscriptions and of traces of unchanging habits of worship and craftsmanship allegedly betrayed in the remains of the Christian Churches of Central Numidia.

The Augustan conquest of the Asturias was resisted with all the tenacity native to that region, but under the combined pressure of no less than three legions, this wild and mountainous area of North-Western Spain finally capitulated in c. 25 B.C. On the Roman side the prospect of mineral exploitation was a major motive that demanded at times the presence of both Augustus and Agrippa. The literary references to the Spanish mining-projects that followed the conquest do not specify particular sites, but indicate instead general areas where mining was initiated. Fortunately, however, the gold-rushes of the last century in California and elsewhere reawakened interest in other areas of the world, and particularly this region of Spain, partly as a result of the legendary stories of Roman successes. The prospectors found many traces of those efforts, although in the main unsuccessful themselves. Part at least of what they saw was recorded in the current mining papers and journals of that period, and we are indebted to the work of O. Davies for abstracting and summarizing much of this information, which would otherwise be difficult to assimilate, the sources now being unobtainable or very inaccessible. We may be sure that the twenty or so mines that he noted are an underestimate, and that many more await discovery. Although Davies' list was made over thirty years ago, none of the sites have since been surveyed in any detail and no photographic record exists.

The places whose numismatic history is studied in this paper are those which happened to be comprised in the provinces of Arabia and Mesopotamia from the time of the institution of these provinces down to the end of the period of the Greek coinage. Thus, as regards Arabia, which was organised in A.D. 106, the mints of Philadelphia, Gerasa, Dium and Philippopolis are included, although they were originally in the Decapolis, and were only transferred to Arabia in the reign of Severus at the earliest. But Canatha, which was transferred at the same time, had then ceased to issue coins; it is therefore omitted from these pages. Eboda, of which a solitary coin of Nero's time is known, might have been omitted on the same grounds, but is included because its coinage does not find a place in the series of any other province. The latest Greek coins issued by any Arabian city are of the time of Valerian and Gallienus.

Of several scenes of the Orpheus myth which had been depicted by earlier artists, only one found its way into the repertory of Roman mosaicists; Orpheus sitting in the wilderness, holding the wild animals spellbound to the music of his lyre. H. Stern has recently compiled a catalogue of forty-seven of these mosaics, and to this number must now be added at least eight more, namely at Edessa, Tarsus, Trento, Trier, Thysdrus, Lepcis Magna, Ptolemais (the subject of this paper), and Tobruk (see below, p. 17), making a grand total of fifty-five, of which forty-five are in the Western Provinces; Roman Britain alone accounts for nine.

Vergil's fourth Eclogue, foretelling a child whose coming would usher in the golden age, has often been supposed to be based upon eastern material; and it has even been suggested that, in the period of Roman history which ended with Octavian's final success at Actium, both East and West alike were expecting the Roman world to pass under the rule of one man, whether a Roman or a king from the east, to be followed by the birth of a child with whom should come the final kingdom of peace. But the ideas of the East in this matter have been deduced from western and Jewish material; and I hope in this paper to do a little toward ascertaining the view of the Greek East from a contemporary Greek document which has never been seriously examined, and considering its relation to the ideas of Vergil. I can only do a little, for most of the material vanished when Augustus later burnt 2,000 prophecies; but the secondary historians from whom we derive our current ideas of the East in the crucial years before Actium are so extraordinarily tendencious that every scrap of contemporary material, outside the circle of the victors' version, must be of value. My aim is to treat the matter solely from the historical standpoint; and the name of the boy Alexander Helios, son of Cleopatra and Antony, in whom East and West met, will serve to unite the two aspects of what I have to say.

In writing a book on Epirus which is in the press I omitted a full description of the battle of the Aoi Stena and of the campaigns in which it is set partly because it involves areas outside Epirus and partly because I had not space for such a description. My travels in Albania included the traversing of the higher ground just east of the Myzeqija plain (see Map II) and the crossing by ferry of the three great rivers, the Genusus (Shkumbi), the Apsus (Semeni) and the Aous (Vijosë), in late March and early April 1931. At that time these rivers were in spate, and the upper parts of the plain were full of sheep, enjoying the spring pastures before moving up to the summer pastures of the mountains. I went from Durazzo (Dyrrachium) up the Shkumbi valley to Elbasan, inspected some sites on the south side of the valley, walked through the low sink which separates the Shkumbi from the Devoli SSW. of Elbasan, and then visited Berat (Antipatrea). On other occasions I walked through the hill country southwards of Berat to Byllis and to Han Qesarat (Map I) in the middle Vijosë valley. In other years I explored the lower Vijosë valley as far as Apollonia, walked through the Aoi Stena and traversed the Vijosë valley from Kelcyrë to Konitsa and the whole length of the Drin valley. The course of these and other travels I have made is shown on Map I. Acquaintance with this terrain has enabled me, I think, to present a new interpretation of parts of Philip's campaigns and of the battle of the Aoi Stena; new in the sense that it is different from those of Kromayer and De Sanctis, who did not visit this area. The paper falls into the following parts: A, a geographical description; B, the campaigns of 200 and 199 B.C. in as far as they concern this area; C, the campaign of 198 B.C. An appendix, dealing with some topographical points, is added.

Perhaps the most remarkable of the various forms of decorated 'Samian' vessels is the jug or vase which is the main subject of this paper. Previously, the precise shape of these vessels was a matter of doubt, the recorded fragments being incomplete, generally lacking neck, handle and base. An attempt was made in 19331 to restore fragments existing in London on the lines of the St. Remygreen-glazed form, Dechelette 6z, but this restoration has been found to be only approximately correct for the particular fragments which belong to Hermet's decorated form I5, as shown in his work La Graufesenque (Condatomago).2 Earlier vessels than Hermet's lagene, however, certainly bore a closer resemblance to Dechelette form 62 than to Hermet form I5, as exemplified by the remarkable vessel found in a well at Baginton, Warwickshire, which, by the courtesy of the owner, Mr. Edwards, I am enabled to reproduce.3 This jug (fig. 7), is like Dechelette 62 first in its shape, which is pyriform and not ovoidal, secondly in the grooving that marks its greatest circumference, thirdly, in the absence of decoration below the grooving, and fourthly, in the absence of ovolo ornaments. The fragments are continuous in section from about the middle of the neck to the base, but the lip and handle have been tentatively restored in the drawing. The glaze is soft and thin, with a tendency to flake, and the colour is a dull, almost brownish, red as often found on vessels of the Tiberio-Claudian period. The style of decoration is also of that date. It is a curious circumstance that, although all the types used in the decoration are South Gaulish in character, none can be exactly identified with the early types given by Knorr. It is suggested, therefore, that this vessel may be a product of a pottery in the neighbourhood of La Graufesenque, though not of La Graufesenque itself. The three zones of decoration are divided by rows of large beads between which can be seen the thin ridges marked (as grooves) in the mould for guidance before the beads were applied. The lowest zone consists of a large open scroll with an early and rather

At the root of many doubts that obscure our understanding of the manner and timing of Tiberius' accession to the principate there lies a chronological puzzle whose solution is perhaps not altogether beyond conjecture. On what date fell the dies imperii of the new emperor? Three (perhaps four) precise, but incorrect, answers are provided by Josephus, Dio and Tertullian. The difficulty is not removed by the brief or tendentious narratives of Velleius, Tacitus and Suetonius which offer us no such date, or of Dio himself. It is the purpose of this paper to argue that Tiberius accepted the principate at the hands of the Senate on a date between 1st and 3rd September, A.D. 14, and that his reluctance to do so is unlikely to have been a consequence of the receipt of news of the Pannonian revolt.

In the reign of Tiberius, and probably early in the reign, two sons, one of them the subject of this paper, were born to a member of the Jewish community of Alexandria, Alexander mistakenly surnamed Lysimachus. His respectability was vouched for by the learning and standing in the community of his brother Philo, his piety by the gift of new gates to the temple at Jerusalem, and his wealth brought him into contact with prominent personalities in both the Roman and Jewish worlds. Agrippa, the grandson of Herod the Great by Aristobulus, was the beneficiary, at a crisis in his fortunes, of Alexander's sympathetic banking transactions; a letter of credit on Puteoli for a large sum enabled this winsome but wasteful scion of the Jewish royal house to face his creditors and return to Italy, and the investment turned out well for Alexander himself, and was to associate his children, particularly Tiberius Iulius, closely with the family of Agrippa for the rest of the latter's lifetime.

One of the most interesting problems in the political history of the last three decades of the third century B.C. is the appearance of the Romans east of the Adriatic. Whether Rome in the First and Second Illyrian Wars was inaugurating a definite imperialistic policy with the conscious aim of gaining control in the Balkan peninsula, or whether at this time she was acting purely on the defensive against Illyrian piracy, are questions with which I am not concerned at present. The fact of primary importance is that, by establishing herself in Illyria, Rome came into contact with Macedon, and this contact was bound to lead to hostilities; for the Antigonids could not fail to resent the intrusion of a stranger in what they considered their own sphere of influence. In this paper I propose to consider the attitude of Philip V to the Roman protectorate in Illyria at the beginning of his reign. Since his whole life was one long struggle with Rome, the importance of understanding his policy in regard to this question is obvious. Before entering upon the subject, however, it will be necessary to try to determine how far westward Macedonian authority extended. A knowledge of this western frontier will not only inform us on the proximity of Macedonian possessions to the Roman protectorate, but will also reveal some of the problems which the barbaric Illyrian and Dardanian tribes presented to Philip in this quarter. Once we have these matters clearly in mind, we shall be in a much better position to form an unbiased estimate of Philip's attitude to what may be called his Illyrian problem.

This paper is concerned with the geographical setting of Roman Algeria and the relation between human settlement and geographical factors, and will contain some comments on the writing of Roman provincial history. The present may be a suitable moment for those who are no longer occupied directly with scholarship to review the first principles and method of provincial history writing, which were perhaps not altogether sound in the published works, and particularly in the general histories, of the pre-war decade. There were two main types of study. The first were monuments of learning and minute scholarship, but tended to convey no general impression at all. The second type were so broad in outline as to be mainly false, a fault particularly marked in the various economic histories and general surveys of the Roman Empire. It is extraordinary that for Roman Africa, with its tens of thousands of inscriptions and superficial ruins and its dozens of town sites, there still exists no coherent or detailed study of part or whole except Toutain's old and excellent account of Tunisia published in 1896. Instead, scholars have concentrated either on particular town sites or on the military frontiers and military stations. The military studies are all linked to Cagnat's monumental work about the Roman Army in Africa. The result is that there exists a coherent body of knowledge about this great topic.

No systematic survey of the methods adopted by military and civil builders in Roman Britain has yet been attempted. Nor does the present brief paper profess to fill the gap. It is merely a collection of notes based mostly upon a personal experience of varied types of Romano-British structure observed during excavation. As such, it may have a contributory value when a more comprehensive review of the subject is undertaken.The best single collection of Roman building-material from Britain is that recovered from the factory of the 20th Legion at Holt, near Chester, and now exhibited in the National Museum of Wales at Cardiff. For the rest, building-materials and methods receive less than their due in our museums.

Several versions of Constantius Chlorus' invasion and recovery of Britain in A.D. 296 have appeared in recent decades.' 'hese accounts agree in some respects, but differ widely in others, and the whole episode seems to need further study. The literary evidence for the campaign is mostly contained in the contemporary panegyric addressed to Constantius by an unknown author and ascribed to Eumenius (Panegyrici Latini, ed. Baehrens, Incert. Pan. viii, I I-I9).2 Tro this may be added Incert. Pan. VI, 5; Aurelius Victor, De Caes. 39, 42; Eutropius 9, 22; and Orosius 7, 25. The findings of modern historians may be summed up as follows: (i) The expedition sailed in two divisions, one under Constantius from Boulogne, and the other from the Seine. Evidence: VIII, I4, 4. (2) T'he weather was foggy or misty. Evidence: VIII, I5, I, and I7, I. (3) The western division from the Seine, which eventually struck the decisive blow, was led by Asclepiodotus, Constantius' praetorian prefect. Evidence: Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, Orosius, l.c. (4) Asclepiodotus landed near the Isle of Wight, possibly at Bitterne (or further down Channel, Oman). On landing, he burnt his boats. Evidence: VIII, I5, I-3, and a hoard of coins at Bitterne. (5) Allectus awaited the invasion at London (or at Porchester, Oman; or on the coast of Britain adjacent to the coast of Gaul, Galletier). Evidence: VIII, I5, 5-6 ; i6, i. (6) Asclepiodotus won a decisive victory over Allectus at or near Woolmer. Evidence: a hoard of 29,802 coins found at Blackmoor, Hants. (7) Constantius' fleet reached London, with or without Constantius (or Constantius himself landed unopposed in Kent, Oman; or a detachment of Asclepiodotus' fleet reached London, Galletier). Evidence : VIII, I7, I (together with a medallion found at Arras in I922). Of these findings, only (i) the two divisions of the expedition, and (3) Asclepiodotus' command of the western division, can be accepted with any confidence. Of the others, (2) the state of the weather, (4) Asclepiodotus' landing-place, and (6) the site of the battle may be somewhere near the truth, but admit of only limited discussion owing to lack of evidence.3 Finally, (5) the movements of Allectus and (7) the activities of Constantius are almost entirely false and rest on a misunderstanding of the texts. It is with these two last topics that this paper will be mainly concerned. The Panegyric.-The panegyric addressed to Constantius, upon which any detailed account of the invasion must be based, suffers from the defects of its nature. It does not offer a narrative of the campaign so much as a rhetorical meditation upon its main events. Constantius, as one would expect, is above criticism. Indeed, the aim of the writer is to divert all the credit of the campaign from Asclepiodotus, who won the decisive victory, to his superior officer, Constantius, who achieved only limited success. Asclepiodotus is not even mentioned. Constantius is not only the organizer of the campaign, but also its mainspring (VIII, I4, 3). So far, so good. Morale enters into generalship just as much as professional skill. But, more than this, it is Constantius' ' felicitas ' that ensures the successful landing, Constantius' inspiration that prompts Asclepiodotus to burn his boats, the threat of Constantius' arrival and not of Asclepiodotus' advance that forces Allectus to leave his fleet (VIII, I5). TFhere is thus considerable distortion of causes and motives. And yet, it is distortion of a conventional kind. No one is likely to have been deceived

Our knowledge of the Jewish Revolt in A.D. 115–117, derived formerly from scanty literary sources only, has been considerably enriched during the last few decades by new evidence, papyrological, epigraphical, and archaeological and the course of the events in the countries of the Jewish Diaspora can now be ascertained in fuller detail than was possible before.The purpose of this paper is to inquire into the general aspects of the revolt.

Messrs. Mattingly and Robinson gave a comprehensive account of the theories which have been propounded by numismatists from the time of Eckhel onwards with reference to the history of the earliest coinages of Rome in a paper in the Numismatic Chronicle for 1938: in this they summarized the points on which they claimed that general agreement had been reached as follows. These points are (1) that there is a long chapter of Roman coinage prior to the ‘X’ denarius (i.e. the silver nummus with the mark of value X): (2) that of the silver in that chapter the ROMANO issues come before the ROMA issues and the quadrigatus (i.e. the didrachms bearing on the reverse the legend ROMANO or ROMA): (3) that the victoriate is a drachm of the light series of didrachms: (4) that the small bronze coins associated with ROMANO-ROMA silver represent token coinage: (5) that the bars are approximately contemporary with the first Aes Grave: (6) that the ROMA silver and the light ‘Latin’ Aes Grave run in parallel series: (7) that as the ‘X’ denarius is certainly contemporary with the sextantal as, all heavier asses must be looked for earlier: (8) that the quadrigatus didrachm and the Janus-prow as are more obviously connected with the later coinage of Rome than the Romano-Campanian silver and the ‘Latin’ Aes Grave: and, probably, (9) that the ‘X’ denarius was not struck till many years after 269 B.C.

Amongst the coins bequeathed by Sir Arthur Evans to the Ashmolean Museum there were, in addition to the extensive series of late Roman currencies and their derivatives, on which he had been working for some years, many others of various groups which he had acquired and put aside as raising points of interest or requiring further investigation. From time to time he brought such coins down to the Museum and discussed them; and one of them may serve not only as a text for this paper, but as an illustration of his keen outlook in wide fields of archaeology. There is a well-known class of Tarentine coins which have as their obverse type the head of a nymph, in this resembling the coins of Neapolis, instead of the normal Tarentine type of Taras on a dolphin : they are struck on the standard, not of Tarentum, but of the cities on the west coast of Magna Graecia; and Evans adopted the view that they had been intended for circulation alongside of the Neapolitan coins in Campania. As no specimens of this class were found in the Beneventan hoard, buried probably about 310 B.C. in the district where they might have been expected to occur, he also concluded that they originated after that date, although he recognised that, so far as style is concerned, some of them might have been struck earlier. But the coin mentioned above, which is illustrated on Plate ii, 1, 2, doubtless suggested to him that his conclusions might require revision in some details : the types are those illustrated on Plate vii, 13, of his ‘Horsemen’ of Tarentum, except that the nymph's head is turned to the right instead of to the left; but by the head are. the letters BP ET, which indicate that the nymph represented was one known in Bruttium, not Parthenope of Neapolis, and therefore the objective of the coins was more likely to be the toe of Italy rather than Campania. If this is accepted, the absence of examples from the Beneventan hoard does not really affect the question of the date of the series, since Beneventum is well outside the area in which they were designed to circulate; and thus the consideration of style becomes more important for dating purposes.

In a paper which appeared under the above heading in Vol. xvi of the Journal mention was made (p. 7, footnote 2) of a previous ‘publication’ of the bronze leg from Milsington by Sir Walter Scott. At the time of writing I had been unable to trace the passage in which he referred to the matter. I am now in a position to quote it. It occurs in a letter addressed to Lord Montague on 22nd February, 1820.