The significance of the well-known central roundel of the mosaic from Hinton St Mary, Dorset, UK, which carries a young male head with a chi-rho monogram behind it and pomegranates on each side, has been much discussed. This paper marshals evidence which suggests that the head is not a representation of Christ, but of one of the emperors of the House of Constantine, perhaps Constantine himself. Some of the implications for the nature of fourth-century imperial culture are discussed.

The use of ornamental stonework in buildings was one of many important innovations introduced by the Romans into Britain. The demand for floor mosaics spread rapidly throughout the province and has been the subject of detailed study but other aspects of decorative stonework, including opus sectile paving and wall veneers, which were no less a sign of conspicuous wealth, have attracted little attention. This paper, therefore, attempts to trace the fashion for ornamental stones in interior and exterior design by examining the evidence from London. Despite the severe limitations of the archaeological evidence, shifts in taste and changes in the types of stone used can be discerned from the London material, which seem to reflect wider commercial activities within the Roman empire. When the material is compared with other parts of the province regional differences become apparent, emphasising the high status London enjoyed from the late first century A.D.

The extensive Romano-British coarse-pottery manufacturing centre in the Farnham area of west Surrey and north-eastern Hampshire has now been known for over half a century and several isolated kilns have been investigated. Until recently however the dating of the pottery has lacked precision owing to the scarcity of stratified and dated groups near to the kilns. As a result of this and the lack of a synthesis of the kiln evidence excavators have found the pottery of little value as dating evidence. Since 1969 a series of excavations on the Romano-British site at Neatham (Vindomi), about 8 km from the main kiln group, have produced large quantities of the pottery, much of it from a series of stratified groups. A study of this material has resulted in improved dating. This paper presents a dated typology of the more widely-distributed types and re-examines the dating of the excavated kilns.

From 1824–41 thousands of Roman coins were recovered from the Thames during the rebuilding of London Bridge and during subsequent dredging operations to deepen the river channel and remove submerged remains of the previous bridge. The coins covered a wide date range, from the reign of Augustus to that of Honorius. It is generally accepted that the great majority were probably votive offerings which had been tossed into the river from a Roman bridge on much the same alignment as its medieval successor.

At present 200 procuratorial stamped tiles are known from Roman Britain, the vast majority from the City of London. A small number of other stamps are known from Westminster, Barking in Essex, Brockley Hill in Hertfordshire, and possibly Saunderton in Buckinghamshire. Eight procuratorial stamped mortaria have also been found in London. All the procuratorial stamped tiles found up to 1986, with two exceptions found too late for inclusion, are listed in RIB II. The considerable number of stamped tiles found in London after this date, almost all of them unpublished, are included in an appendix to this report.

It is an unfortunate fact that historians of the Later Roman Empire are forced to derive much of their chronological material from chronicles and consular fasti. I say unfortunate, for chronicles are not nearly as accurate as modern historians would like them to be. This is because they were an exceptionally difficult type of history to compile, prone to error at every turn, from the gathering of sources to the copying of the final text, and because most chroniclers were essentially ‘amateurs’, having little experience in doing research, thinking or writing historically, and usually separated by considerable time and space from the events they were describing. These facts constantly rankle with modern historians, and some who have had to rely heavily on chronicles rather than attempt methodological or historiographical explanations of why they believe particular entries in chronicles are incorrectly dated, have often taken the easy way out and tried to solve their problems by emending them away: they alter the texts themselves, offering as excuses the assumptions (usually only implicit) that the chroniclers were skilful historians with access to reliable sources, that they were able to present their information accurately and carefully, and that the texts as we have them now were corrupted by ignorant and careless medieval scribes.

Since 1991, recording of metal-detector and archaeological finds in east Kent has shown that Iron Age coins are far more numerous than previously thought. Their quantity and distribution suggests widespread use and acceptance. Continental links, suggesting trade activity, are also evident. A number of sites producing large numbers of coins and other evidence of Iron Age (and Roman) occupation have been identified, with chronological and functional differences being apparent. Away from these sites, significant numbers of coins have been recorded from across much of the surrounding area, enabling comparisons to be made between individual sites and the background distribution, leading to a greater understanding of Iron Age coinage and settlement in east Kent.

Pendants are frequent finds on sites of the Roman period. ‘Daily life was deeply penetrated, perhaps dominated, by supernatural considerations … in consequence talismans are common’. They were used for a variety of purposes; not only individuals, but houses, walls and even towns could be protected by them. This short paper concentrates on one particular type of pendant, manufactured from the crown or burr of red deer antler which is found predominantly on sites in the North-western provinces of the Empire. Whilst a small number of these pendants have received limited attention, discussion has centred primarily on the presence of a phallus as a decorative motif (Types 4-7 below) and the lesser known, but more common, undecorated forms (Types 1-3 below) have been relatively ignored.

The chronology of the Saxon conquest of Britain is notoriously obscure. Among its most controversial aspects is the date of the adventus Saxonum, the appearance of the Saxons as an independent force in Britain. Only two sets of literary sources throw light on the question. A single contemporary, the anonymous Gallic Chronicler of 452, briefly noted under the year XVIII of Theodosius II (equated by Mommsen to A.D. 441–2) that ‘The British provinces, which up to this time had suffered various disasters and misfortunes, were reduced to Saxon rule’. Bede, writing in the eighth century, and basing his calculations on Gildas’ sketchy sixth-century account, supplied two somewhat later dates for the coming of the English to Britain: the first, A.D. 446–7, and the second ‘in the reign of Marcian and Valentinian’, that is, between 449 and 455. Bede's dates were generally accepted in the first part of this century, and the testimony of the Chronicler of 452, which records the end, and not the beginning, of a Saxon conquest, was dismissed as unreliable. In the last few years, there has been a tendency among scholars to consider Bede's dates mistaken, and to base the chronology of the adventus on the entry in the Chronicle of 452. Bede has not lacked defenders, however. Recently, Dr Molly Miller suggested not only that the date of 441-2 for the adventus was a figment of Mommsen's edition of the Gallic Chronicle, but also that the Chronicle itself could not be considered as a fifth-century source because it had been edited and interpolated at a later date. Miller's article raises serious questions about the value of the Chronicle of 452. Can it be used as a contemporary account of fifth-century events? Or must it be treated as a compilation contaminated by Carolingian editors?

Almost 16 years have elapsed since the publication, in 1959, of Dr. Philip Corder's paper on the structure of Romano-British pottery kilns. During this time much new evidence has come to light, especially in the upper Nene Valley, and the series of experimental firings carried out at Wattisfield, Boston, Leeds, Barton-on-Humbers and Chichester has greatly enhanced our knowledge of the techniques employed. The present paper is primarily concerned with pottery kilns of the pre-Flavian period in the Nene Valley and seeks to bring together, under one heading, the new and largely unpublished material from this region.

Recent work has advanced our understanding of human crania found in London's upper Walbrook valley, where skull deposition appears to have peaked during the occupation of the Cripplegate fort, itself probably built soon after London's Hadrianic fire. Although this fire is usually considered to have been accidental, parallels can be drawn with London's Boudican destruction. This article explores the possibility that these three strands of Hadrianic evidence — fire, fort and skulls — find common explanation in events associated with a British war of this period. This might support the identification of some Walbrook skulls as trophy heads, disposed as noxii in wet places in the urban pomerium.

Our fullest account, indeed the only account of any length, of the Roman invasion of Britain in a.d. 43 appears in the Roman History of Cassius Dio, composed from earlier sources in the third century. Not surprisingly, this is taken as providing a narrative framework for the events of the invasion. However, Dio's account omits or is unclear about even major matters of importance: in recent years, for example, there has been a debate over whether the army commanded by Aulus Plautius actually landed in Kent or in Sussex. A brief notice of the invasion appears in the Breviarium of the fourth-century writer Eutropius. The significance of what Eutropius wrote is examined below and its importance for the strategy of the invasion is assessed.

It has long been accepted that the Roman soldier was as likely to be engaged in craft or building activities as he was in specifically military ones such as fighting or drill practice. Vegetius listed the specialists that could be expected in a legion. They included builders of various types, people who could make vehicles, armourers, and weaponsmiths. The soldiers in auxiliary units also needed similar skills as the lists dating to the beginning of the second century at Vindolanda make clear. These gave details of the numbers of men engaged in different activities, and noted builders, shoemakers, and men working at some type of kiln or furnace. The archaeological evidence shows that the range of craftsmen was a large one. Potting industries were set up when the local potters did not provide the suite of vessels the soldiers required. Metalsmiths turned their hands to enamelled vessels as well as utilitarian items with a more obviously military function such as harness-fittings and studs. This paper will explore another possible facet of military craftsmanship, that of the manufacture and working of glass which is suggested by the recovery of glass-melting pots and partially reacted glass batch material at 16–22 Coppergate, York.

Excavation carried out between 1969 and 1970 before and during rebuilding work exposed most of the west end of the Roman bathing establishment. A new structural history (replacing Cunliffe 1969) was worked out involving five major periods with subsequent minor changes. The structural alterations are fully described and illustrated, together with details of trial trenches cut during building work. Pottery and finds, including bottle-shaped ceramic elements possibly used to construct vaults, are described. Limited work on the temple precinct will enable the plan to be extended and corrected.