It may be of interest to describe examples of small round buildings found in exploring Roman forts in this country, adding for comparison notes on others recorded in connexion with forts on the German Limes ; for in many cases the purpose of these buildings has been misunderstood, and in some cases the misunderstanding appears still to persist. The buildings in question are generally about 15-20 feet in internal diameter, and they either stand close beside the bath-buildings of the fort to which they belong, or form part of these buildings. In the last century, when bath-buildings of this kind were habitually described- as ‘villas’ and mistaken for official residences, the circular structures were often described as temples or shrines. But this theory has never been borne out by the discovery of altars, inscriptions, votive objects, or anything whatever pointing to a religious function ; and, on the other hand, even apart from the now universally recognised purpose of the bath-houses with which they are associated, finds have been made in the round buildings themselves pointing towards their use as baths.

In 1914 the Scottish Antiquaries began excavations on the hill of Traprain Law, 20 miles E. of Edinburgh, about 2 miles from the sea and overlooking the Firth of Forth. Here in 1919 was made one of the most notable discoveries ever known in Britain, the hoard of Roman silver plate, now in the National Scottish Museum, and admirably described by Mr. Alex. Curle, Director of the Royal Scottish Museum. There are remains of 10 flagons or flasks, 5 wine cups, 50 bowls, deep and shallow, 22 flat circular dishes, 6 square dishes, 5 cylindrical vessels, 9 spoons, a wine strainer, part of a funnel, 2 lids, a toilet box, 2 handles in animal forms, etc., packets of cut-up pieces ready for smelting [or to pass by weight as money ?], a fibula, 2 buckles, a hand-mirror, an earring, and 4 silver coins—one each of Valens (364-78) and Valentinian II (379-93), and 2 of Honorius (395-423). These last named ‘were in good condition,’ and it was therefore evident that the deposit was made in the reign of Honorius ‘probably in the commencement of the fifth century, or at least shortly thereafter.’

Dr. Stefan Weinstock's article ‘Pax and the “Ara Pacis”’, contributed to Volume L, 1960, of this Journal (pp. 44–58), has performed two signal services to archaeology. In Part I of his paper the writer has given us a full and very valuable account of the cult of Peace in the Greek and Roman worlds from the fourth century B.C. to the Flavian age; and throughout the study as a whole he most properly insists that we possess no explicit evidence, such as that of an inscription, to prove that the well-known monument excavated in the Campus Martius is to be identified with the Ara Pacis of the texts. This is a point on which all previous students of the monument, myself included, have certainly laid far too little emphasis. It is, however, not perhaps quite fair to imply that the advocates of the equation have been victims of credulity (p. 44), even if they have in their writings taken that equation too much for granted, or to state that ‘the question has never been asked why it [the monument] should be the Ara Pacis’.

The military diploma, which is here published, was acquired by the British Museum in 1923. It was bought from a dealer at Cairo, and was included in a purchase consisting mainly of MSS. made by the Museum jointly with the University of Michigan. No further source can be named, but the contents make it probable that it was found in or near the Arsenoite Nome.

The document conforms closely to the normal type. It consists of a pair of bronze tablets measuring 16 by 19 cm. Two holes pierced in each near the angles of a long side (one is now lost from the first tablet) served for the insertion of rings to form hinges. Two holes pierced near the centre of each long side served for the wire or string, which fastened the tablets, and was sealed by the seven witnesses who attested the certificate. On the outside of the second tablet are remains of the metal shield which protected the seals, but which has itself perished in almost every instance.

Within the next few years greater attention will be given to a period of Roman Imperial coinage which, apart from special and isolated studies, has so far lacked a broad and balanced treatment. The completion, now near, of volumes VI, VII and VIII of ‘Mattingly-Sydenham’ will fill the large and difficult gap between the end of the third century and Pearce's volume IX, i.e. from c. 294 to 364. For the earlier Empire the great sequence of British Museum catalogues has furnished a powerful instrument by which imperial achievement can in some degree be measured against imperial claims or aspirations; and it is now reasonable to assert that a valid distinction is to be made between the imperial image as the emperors presented it and that which the ancient historians wished or chose to reflect. In the third century, and especially in the middle of the third century, the imperial coinage suffered an increasing debasement, not only in actual metal but also in types used with such indiscriminate generality that they must have diluted the previously selective imperial image to an ultimately negligible significance. Hence the interest of the coinage from c. 294 to 364. Avoiding altogether the excessive type-variation of the mid-third century, this seems often to wear a stereotyped or even rigid air; but in fact this economy of usage will allow a much more perceptive interpretation of those lesser variations which were from time to time permitted or necessitated. Such interpretation, against the general historical context of the time, should be a major exercise in the coming years.

The traditional date for the Syrian governorship of M. Titius, ‘about 10 B.C.’, is derived from a passage in Josephus, where he is referred to in connection with Herod's supposed ‘third journey’ to Rome. The circumstances of this third journey have caused considerable perplexity to those who have investigated the details of the reign of Herod the Great. The trouble is due to a confusion in Josephus himself, who can be shown to be narrating a series of events as occurring after, which in reality refer to the years immediately before, 12 B.C. The ‘third journey’ was never undertaken or, indeed, contemplated, and the context in which the name of Titius occurs is to be dated to 12 B.C. and not later.

Caecina and Aebutius both laid claim to the same piece of land. When Caecina attempted to enter on it, he was driven away by the threats of Aebutius and his followers, all armed. Cicero, counsel for Caecina, obtained from the praetor an injunction, such as had often been given in similar cases, ordering Aebutius to restore Caecina to the land in dispute, ‘if indeed it was true that he had ejected him by force, with the help of armed men.’ It was, however, not true, according to Piso who pleaded the cause of Aebutius. Piso admitted most of the facts alleged by Cicero. But he maintained that, strictly speaking, his client had not ejected Caecina ‘by force’ nor, for that matter, ‘ejected’ him at all. No ‘force’ had been used, said Piso: Caecina had taken to his heels long before he was hurt.