The theory here to be disproved may be said to have grown almost to the dimensions of a legend; and it is a legend containing certain dark implications which have won it the greater popularity. For half a century P. Paquius Proculus has been maligned, and a calumny which should never have been started has had to wait till now for the refutation it deserves. Briefly, the account of this unfortunate Pompeian given by archaeologists who had studied his career was that, thanks to manoeuvre, intrigue and other forms of electoral machination, P. Paquius Proculus, from being a humble baker, rose to the highest magistracy in the city—the duumvirate. For the moment we may ignore the less savoury details which were added in course of time.

The three fragments of Imperial statues which I propose to discuss are all of bronze, and they have this in common that all of them were found in Britain. The first, which has long been familiar to frequenters of the British Museum, has been published on various occasions. It has indeed been described and illustrated in an earlier issue of the Journal of Roman Studies. I refer to the fine head of Hadrian (plate I), found in the Thames near London Bridge in 1834. The story of its discovery, as told in a contemporary issue of the Gentleman's Magazine, contains nothing that would help to explain how or when it found its way into its strange resting-place. That it had originally been part of a colossal statue is hardly open to question. And it is almost equally certain that the statue must once have stood in some public place in Roman London. Mr. Roach Smith was disposed to think that it had formerly adorned the poop of a Roman ship. But his suggestion, though he appeals to Virgil to support it, appears to be exceedingly improbable. In bulk and shape it is ill adapted for such a position, and other noteworthy artistic objects of bronze, which cannot possibly have served a purpose of the kind, were dredged from the river at or near the same spot in 1837. We may be sure that all alike were thrown into the water as the readiest means of getting rid of what was regarded as worthless rubbish. We cannot tell whether it was ignorance or malevolence that was responsible. The most we can safely affirm is that a statue of Hadrian is not likely to have suffered violence at the hands of loyal subjects of Rome. Whatever his idiosyncrasies, this Emperor left no evil memory behind him. The head itself, if not very good as a portrait, has considerable artistic merits. From these points of view, I have nothing to add to what has been already so well said of it by others. Nevertheless it may be permissible to draw attention to it again, partly for the sake of completeness and partly because it supplies an excuse for recalling a very apposite passage, which I do not remember to have seen quoted in connexion with it before.

Until the discoveries of papyri in Egypt began we were practically dependent for our knowledge of Claudius' dealings with the Jews on the notice of their expulsion from Rome in A.D. 49 contained in the Acts of the Apostles, coupled with the mysterious allusion in Suetonius—Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit—which is generally interpreted as containing the earliest reference to the relations of Christianity with the Imperial government, and on certain passages in Josephus, which shew the influence wielded by the two Agrippas, father and son, and Herod, the elder brother of Agrippa I, at the court of Claudius and exerted by them on behalf of their co-religionists.

When L. Aemilius Paulus visited Delphi after the crowning victory of Pydna his eye rested on a lofty pedestal, upon which his vanquished enemy, Perseus, was intending to set up a golden statue of himself. He determined that his own figure should occupy the vacant place, and his orders to this effect were carried out. No trace of the statue (or group) has been recovered, but there are considerable remains of the sculptured frieze, representing the cavalry skirmish which formed the prelude to the battle of Pydna, and it has been possible to reconstruct the monument in the Museum at Delphi with the surviving blocks and a free use of plaster to fill the gaps (fig. 54 and plate xx).

The dating of coarse pottery on Roman sites in the first and second centuries has been fairly well established, but there is still much uncertainty in the chronology of coarse ware during the third and fourth centuries. Hence it may be helpful to describe the pottery found in a Roman well which would appear, from the evidence to be adduced, to have remained open only during the third century. In my plan of Margidunum published in the Journal of Roman Studies, xiii, Pl. VIII, the position of this well, marked R, is shown to be situated halfway between the Via Quintana and the southern rampart. It lies just outside the eastern wall of a small building which may have been used as a stable, at any rate in the earlier occupation of the camp, for in the interior I found a pit (J) which had been filled up in the early part of the second century. The lower two feet contained brushwood, straw and horse-dung quite unaltered, owing to the pit having been hermetically sealed by clay. Doubtless this pit was closed when the camp was dismantled and the Fosse Way driven arbitrarily across it, over the old camp-roads and the foundations of the razed buildings.

Roman Aries has more history than most towns in the northern provinces. It should therefore be in some degree an index-site for the archaeologist. This at present it is not, partly through accident and partly through neglect. With disputed exceptions, no inscription throws direct light upon any one of its surviving buildings, nor has any attempt been made to supply this deficiency by scientific excavation. Even the structural evidence which meets the eye of the visitor has received considerably less than due attention from the archaeologist. In particular, the complex fragments of the town-walls have not yet been subjected to the reasoned discussion which their fine construction and their general historical environment alike demand. It may be of profit here to attack some of the problems of these walls, not merely for their intrinsic interest but because a solution could scarcely fail to assist in that of kindred problems on more obscure sites in Gaul and even in Britain.

It is well known that in the second century B.C. the Roman Senate was frequently called upon to compose disputes between Greek states, but of its procedure in such cases there has hitherto been little to say. It is therefore a matter of some interest that fresh light is thrown on this question by a new inscription from Crete. The dispute which is here described arose between the towns of Hierapytna and Itanus, both of which claimed possession of an inland territory adjoining the sanctuary of Zeus Dictaeus, and of certain adjacent islands. The history of this quarrel was already known to us in part from an older inscription containing an arbitral award by the city of Magnesia-on-Maeander; but from the few stray references which that document made to the Romans it was impossible to reconstruct the account of their intervention. In future I propose to call the old inscription A, the new one B.

When the cohort took the place of the maniple as the tactical unit of the Roman army, the legion was divided into ten cohorts, each of which contained six centuries. Each century was commanded by a centurion, and these officers were classified as pili, principes and hastati in such a way that there were two centurions of each grade, distinguished as prior and posterior, in each cohort. These names originally referred to the three lines of maniples in the acies, and their retention as titles for the centurions, when their former significance had become obsolete, suggests that it was a convenient way of denoting seniority. It is of interest to try and discover on what principle promotions were made.

In July, 1924, we travelled from Afion-kara-hissar through the district of the Pentapolis to Dineir (Apameia), and thence to Chivril on the edge of the Eumeneian plain. After visiting most of the villages near Ishekli (Eumeneia) we went northward via Seljukler to join the railway at Ushak; the objects mentioned below were seen in the course of this journey.

The term Galatia is here used in the widest sense, equivalent to of Γαλατιϰὴ ἐπαρχεία C.I.G. 3991.

It is a remarkable feature that there is hardly any allusion in the inscriptions of Galatia to πραγματευόμενοι ʽΡωμαῖοι or ὁ δῆμος ϰαὶ οί ϰατοιϰοῦντες Ρωμϰῖοι. I do not remember one; but they may occur rarely and have escaped my notice or memory. In the province of Asia these cives qui ibi negotiantur occur very frequently.

The solitary allusion of any approximate character that I know in Galatia is ὁ δῆμος οἵ τε συμπολιτευόμενοι Ρωμαῖοι, which indicates a closer connexion and more equal rights between natives and cives Romani than was the case in Asia. Paul was a Cilician, and the same rule seems to have held there as in Galatia.

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.

Soon after the somewhat rash attempt to reconstruct from an imperfect copy the Angora Resolution of the Stage Guild (J.H.S. xliv, 1924, pp. 158-161), I learnt that the marble pedestal on the right side of which it is engraved now stands well preserved within the cella of the Augusteum. The epigraphic copy of Calder and Cox and the excellent squeeze made by Cox in 1925 (Plate XXXIII) were generously put at my disposal, and in May 1926 I examined the original myself. The text, as will be seen, is much clearer than the previous copies led one to suppose; it differs so materially from the transcript in J.H.S. l.c., pp. 158-159, that a mere list of the requisite corrections would not be enough; only a revised edition of the whole document can be intelligible. In preparing this from the information and suggestions kindly supplied by Calder and Cox, I have also been favoured with the advice of Professor Josef Keil, invaluable for the restoration of ll. 30-36, and with that of Professor H. Dessau, who recognised the Roman dating and supplied the consul's name in the last line. Besides clearing away many textual obscurities, the revision of the original text has given us the endings of lines and the length of the lacunae in ll. 23-55. The facsimile (Plate XXXIII) shows only ll. 2-55.

Artemidorus, quoted by Strabo xii, 7, 2, enumerates the Pisidian cities as follows: Selge, Sagalassos, Petnêlissos, Adada, Tymbriada, Krêmna, Pityassos, Amblada, Anaboura, Sinda, Aarassos, Tarbassos, Termêssos. Some of these names are doubtful, and the list is short. Aarassos is otherwise unknown; Tityassos is a more common form of Pityassos, but variation between initial P and T through TW is characteristic of Anatolian words; e.g. Perseus was the herofounder of Tersos-Tarsos, now Tersous. It is proposed here merely to register some recent discoveries.