In 1903 and 1904 Giacomo Boni undertook a stratigraphic excavation to the N.W. of the fountation of Equua Domitiani in the Forum Romanum. The finds, unfortunately never published, are preserved in perfect order in the storeroom of the Forum Museum; and thanks to the generosity of Italian colleagues of whom I wish to mention in particular Professors P. Romanelli and S. Puglisi, this material was placed at my disposal for study and publication. When it turned out to be necessary to carry out a supplementary excavation, permission was readily granted me by the Italian authorities.

In 1855 C. Müller published the first volume of his Geographi Graeci Minores: in the introduction to the ‘Periplus of the Erythraean Sea’ he states that he has studied six hundred writers on the question’ what was murrhine, but that it may be now regarded as certain that murrhine vases were made of fluorspar’. Since, however, the opinions which Müller discarded have been revived by writers entitled to respectful consideration, some of whom have also given reasons for rejecting the identification with fluorspar, it seems desirable to review the matter and to put on record certain new evidence.

Inyanga is a district in Southern Rhodesia whose monuments were brought to the notice of readers of ANTIQUITY a short while ago. A Fund raised by private subscription mainly from Rhodesian sources has recently sponsored excavations in this district and at the conclusion of the second season's work it seems desirable to make a preliminary report. The excavations were directed by the writer who was fortunate in having the very skilful assistance of the Colony's Inspector of Monuments, Mr K. R. Robinson. Unfortunately no amateurs were able to assist us.

Dr Gordon Ward says that my paper ‘Sutton Hoo-Recent Theories’ is described by me as ‘embodying the official views about Sutton Hoo’ and ‘thus claims very particular authority’. What I said in fact was (op. cit., p. 1) that, since opposite opinions had recently been expressed on certain critical aspects of the find (Pagan or Christian ? Grave or Cenotaph ? English or Swedish ?),’ it is desirable that an official assessment of the issues should be offered to students, even though it cannot be regarded as final’. Anyone who can get into print can say what he likes about Sutton Hoo. Those officially engaged on the study and definition of the material naturally bear a greater responsibility for their utterances. They should also be acquainted with the facts, which not all commentators have been. By ‘official assessment’ I meant no more than that, as a sympathetic reader must at once have seen.

Dr Gordon Ward's summary of the evidence of the coins and of the views of numismatists regarding the date of Sutton Hoo calls for some comment. Its object is apparently that of demonstrating that, as he himself puts it, ‘the numismatists have been set a task for which they are not equipped’. The archaeologists, he suggests, must be left to settle the date between themselves, and the numismatic ‘evidence’ can simply be ignored. If this ‘evidence’ runs counter to his belief that the burial commemorates King Redwald, so much the worse for the ‘evidence’. It is too uncertain and imprecise to be of much use anyway.