The discovery in 1928 of what are now known as the Tablettes Albertini threw a flood of new light on economic conditions in late Roman imperial times. The Tablettes consist of a potful of legal documents, written on wooden tablets and dating from the last three years of the reign of the Vandal king Gunthamund (484–496), which were found at some not precisely ascertainable spot on the frontier between Algeria and Tunis. They include the details of a marriage settlement, a contract for the sale of a slave, a number of deeds relating to the sale of olive trees and other agricultural property, and a list of personal names with sums of money noted against each. Many of the tablets are no more than fragments and their decipherment and interpretation involve problems of great complexity. Two of them, and an assessment of the extent and value of the whole collection, were published in 1930 by Professor Eugène Albertini, of the University of Algiers, and he continued to collect material for their definitive study up to his death in 1941. In 1952 they were elaborately published by four French scholars, who subjected every aspect of their material features and their contents—epigraphy, language, law, economic significance—to minute analysis and review.

Two attitudes, broadly speaking, are possible to the problem of dating the Notitia Dignitatum. (1) We may suppose that the original document from which our text is derived was from first to last an official copy kept in the principal chancellery of the Western Empire at Ravenna, that the text suffered no material alteration in its subsequent history, and that, in consequence, items, such as late military formations whose period can be fixed, may safely be used to date the picture of the Empire presented by the document as a whole. Or (2) we may regard the original as a copy (perhaps an early one) which had passed into private hands and had suffered interpolation of items of later date.

It is rapidly coming to be agreed among scholars that a re-dating of the earliest Roman coinage, centring round the transference of the denarius from 269 to circa 187 B.C., is now inevitable. Such a re-dating is bound to have very wide effects outside the coinage. The whole question of the expression of values in terms of money must come up for reconsideration. It is my object in this paper to concentrate on one part of the general question—the property qualifications of the Roman classes. The evidence is scanty and, for the earlier period, of problematic value. The figures of the Servian constitution, in particular, even if we admit them to have any real reference to early Roman history, must have been expressed in terms of money at a comparatively late date. Until we know when they began to be so expressed, we do not know what they really mean in value. Even our scanty records, however, if critically examined in their correct historical order, will yield definite results of a somewhat surprising character.

Mr. M. P. Charlesworth's Raleigh Lecture, ‘The Virtues of a Roman Emperor: Propaganda and the Creation of Belief,’ serves admirably to illuminate a new aspect of the history of the Roman Empire, in which the debt of pure history to numismatics (and notably to the work of Mr. Mattingly in the British Museum Catalogues) will be plain. From the numismatic point of view there is, indeed, one curious omission in Mr. Charlesworth's argument; and attempts to make good the omission have opened up a series of speculations which are here discussed.

This article discusses the most memorable works of art described in Virgil's Aeneid (the paintings at the temple in Carthage, the doors of the temple in Cumae, the shield of Aeneas, and the baldric of Pallas) as visual models for the poem's organization of its own intertextual memory. The multi-dimensionality of memory enacted in the viewing of these pictorial programmes emerges as a metaphorical visualization of the semantic density created by the overlapping intertexts within the narrative itself and, what is more, urges the reader to perceive works of Augustan monumental art as embodiments of a similarly complex universe of memory.

Current scholarship on élite munificence in the Roman Empire often sees architectural benefactions as being at least partially driven by the élite desire for personal commemoration. I use juristic opinions from the Digest and other textual evidence related to building gifts to argue that there was an ancient understanding of the physical and symbolic ephemerality of architectural benefactions. In contrast, I present legal and epigraphic evidence to argue that there was an explicit expectation for gifts of spectacles and monetary distributions to be lasting memorials for their donors, and that the perpetuation of identity was also a motivating factor in the euergetic choice of a spectacle.

This article discusses the votive dedications to the goddess Reitia at the sanctuary of Este-Baratella (Veneto) as evidence for the acquisition of literacy in Italy c. 350–150 b.c. These dedications, which take the form of bronze writing-tablets and styluses, are inscribed with Venetic dedicatory formulae, abecedaria and other writing exercises. This article shows how these texts function as writing exercises — some of the earliest evidence of elementary education methods in Italy. Many of the votives were dedicated by women, and this article argues that women were active participants in literacy and education in this period. It also sets the dedications in their Italian and Mediterranean context by comparing them to votive and funerary deposits of abecedaria from across Italy and the ancient world.

The aim of this quinquennial survey remains the same as its predecessor, as for the most part does the format, though the team is regrettably reduced by one. With an eye to the study of the Roman world, we hope to signal the most important newly published inscriptions, significant reinterpretations of previously published material, new trends in scholarship, recent studies that draw heavily on epigraphic sources, and noteworthy developments in the various aids to understanding inscriptions (both traditional printed material and electronic resources). In the context of this journal, the geographical range and chronological scope reflect the contours and history of the Roman state from its beginnings down to the end of the seventh century. As such, not only does the survey naturally take in Greek as well as Latin texts, but also epigraphic material in other languages relevant to the Roman world. In the hope that they might usefully reflect the various fields of primary interest to readers of this journal, we have maintained the categories established in the last survey. These comprise, after material of general interest and significance, principal divisions under the headings of (II) Government, law, and authority, (III) Cities, (IV) Funerary epigraphy, (V) Religions, and (VI) Language, literature, and onomastics. The structure of the first section has been changed somewhat in order to give greater prominence to those inscriptions here singled out as historical highlights. The organization of the discussion within each section (or subsection) generally moves between the thematic, chronological, and geographical, as seems to suit the material best.

Since Usener put prominently forward the theory of Sondergötter, the idea has been subjected to trenchant negative criticism by two experts in the fields of Greek and Roman religion respectively, Farnell and Wissowa. The former protests, and rightly so, against the cheerful assumption that, whenever a deity has a name describing a function, “Saviour,” “Queen,” “Victory,” for example, we should regard him or her as a primitive Sondergott; since many examples teach us that such figures are often the products of a developed polytheism. He would suggest, as a better test than the name, the non-anthropomorphic conception of the god, or rather daimon, in the minds of his worshippers. Thus he clears the field of Greek religion of a great many heroes and daimones who, whatever their names may be, are too developed and too late to have any claim to represent primitive thought. Wissowa attacks the question from a somewhat different standpoint. He sees in the formidable list of Roman Sondergötter nothing more recondite than Varro's attempt to arrange all possible deities under “di certi,” or at most the artificial “indigitamenta” of the pontifices which, in accordance with “die peinliche Genauigkeit in der Aufstellung der römischen Gebetsformeln,” endeavoured to call upon whatever god was addressed under all the names which applied to the actual petition.

The triumph, to a Roman of the later Republic and Empire, seemed sacred and all of a piece. Its venerable antiquity was more important than its origin or development. So on the one hand Roman antiquarians agreed the triumph was as ancient as Romulus himself; and on the other its antiquity was felt to be confirmed rather than impaired by the connection of many details with the Etruscans—though the ancients never claimed, as modern scholars have done, that the institution itself was borrowed from the Etruscans. It was simply neither important nor desirable to pin down precisely the dates or phases of such a hallowed celebration.

Of course it is not true that there were no changes. Yet the Roman attitude may have also affected modern historians, who until rather recently have been satisfied with a kind of ‘unitarian’ view of the triumph as something permanent and immutable, untouched by history; discussions of particular problems, such as the alleged divinization of the triumphator or the location of the porta triumphalis, have taken very little account of changes in the triumph itself. Many Roman rituals did, indeed, continue practically unchanged, and it is a peculiarity of Roman history that our most reliable documents for the early period are religious festivals celebrated year after year, rather than written records or histories. But the triumph was, more than other religious festivals, a part of the political life at Rome.

The remarkable resemblance between Rufinus, adv. Hieron., 2, 36 ( = Migne, PL xxi, 392, col 614 f.) and Isidorus, Etym. 1, 24, was noticed by the Renaissance scholars, but no explanation of this resemblance appears to have been attempted. The purpose of the present note is to elucidate certain points of difficulty in the two passages, and to assess the value of their evidence on the practice of Roman military bookkeeping.

The two following notes deal with parallel and interrelated aspects of imperial policy noticeable in Spain after the institution of the Principate, namely, the attitude of the provincials to the Princeps and his house, and the survival of Nationalism. Under the first head are included both religious and non-religious institutions, showing in each case not only the reactions of the Spanish provincials to the Principate but also the personal efforts made by the Princeps to ingratiate himself and his dynasty, while in the second note an attempt is made to demonstrate that the imperial administration, so far from aiming at a paralysis of nationalism, went out of its way to encourage it.

This paper outlines a new framework for the historical study of Rome and Italy during the middle republican period. We argue that traditional approaches centred upon social struggles at home and battles abroad, res domi militiaeque, do not sufficiently capture the dynamism of Roman society during the early stages of imperial expansion. Recent scholarship has been rightly critical of the appropriateness of applying concepts of Hellenisation to the period, as Rome's interactions with Magna Graecia and the Greek East in the fourth and third centuries look very different than they would in subsequent centuries. Moving in a new direction, we sketch the contours of an approach that foregrounds the many connectivities (temporal, geographical, methodological, historical) apparent from the interdisciplinary study of middle republican Rome and Italy. The result encourages a new mode of historical inquiry into the development of middle republican Rome and Italy, one which sees Rome already in this moment as both expansively interconnected with and actively involved in wider Mediterranean and Eurasian history.

Martial's Liber de Spectaculis is almost universally considered a work describing the remarkable 100-day games held by Titus on the inauguration of the new Flavian Amphitheatre in A.D. 80. There is in fact no internal evidence for this attribution, which has been justified by Martial's praise of the building (“it sounds new”) and the inexact parallels between the description of Titus' games in Dio and the events memorialized by Martial. The highpoint of animal activities in Martial concerns the rhinoceros, not mentioned at all by Dio. Under Domitian a sudden, extensive and unparalleled issue of coins with the rhinoceros type signals the advertisement of that rare beast in his games. The coins date to A.D. 83–85. It is to that period, and to the reign of Domitian, that Martial's work should be dated.