The legal problem is easily posed. Gaius, in iii, 92–4, records that the making of an agreement by the use of the word spondeo, was confined to Roman citizens. The agreement which resulted from the use of the word, namely verborum obligatio or stipulatio, was apparently sanctioned by the Twelve Tables and may thus be regarded as forming part of the earliest Roman legal system. But Gaius goes on to record that his sources allowed one case when a foreigner might use the word spondeo, in the course of negotiations between a Roman general (for Gaius he was the Emperor) and a foreign princeps. Were Gaius' sources right? If they were, it is permissible to speculate on what lay behind the two usages. The conclusion of A. Magdelain is that the oral contract undertaken by the use of the word spondeo was religious in origin, that before the Twelve Tables it was backed up by an oath and that violation of this oath made a man sacer, effectively an outlaw who could be killed with impunity. Magdelain's thesis depends on accepting the premise that Livy's account of the disaster of the Caudine Forks, which involves a sponsio between a Roman and a non-Roman, is substantially true. V. Bellini, starting from the same premise, argues that a sponsio between a Roman commander and a foreign commander originally bound the Roman people and only gradually became subject to ratification at Rome.

In 13 B.C. Augustus laid down that the minimum length of army service should be sixteen years. During the Late Republic it appears that at times only six years had been required of recruits, but it may be suspected that in the Civil Wars service had been lengthening—one can note already the gap of sixteen years between the great settlements of 30 and 14 B.C.

In A.D. 5, facing a shortage of recruits and an unwillingness of soldiers to remain in service beyond the statutory period, Augustus introduced a new package deal by which the praemia militiae were stepped up, perhaps considerably, but the minimum period of service extended to twenty years. Such are the figures given by Dio, but it is clear from the epigraphic and literary evidence—the latter provided in the main by Tacitus's account of the A.D. 14 mutinies—that Augustus sometimes succeeded in holding on to his soldiers beyond these limits, by retaining them as reservists sub vexillo, under a special standard, for a period of four years after 13 B.C., and for five years after A.D. 5, making totals of twenty and twenty-five years. Naturally this extension would not be stressed, and it should not be surprising if there is no mention in Dio of service sub vexillo.

Many stretches of the paved Roman road described here are already known. The earliest section of it (from Gabii) was described by Nibby as the shortest route to Passerano (see Figs. 1 and 2) (Nibby, 1849, iii: 69–70) and it is recorded by Ashby (1906: 195–6) together with the part east from the Fosso di Corzano (Fig. 2). A ‘Via Antica’ is marked between the Fosso di Passerano and the upper course of the Fosso di Ceccara on the ‘Colonna’ map sheet.

The last stages of the road were referred to by Lanciani (1909: 188), and described by Ashby after the crossing of the Fosso di San Vittorino (Fig. 3): ‘On the steep ascent beyond the pavement it is still in good preservation. After reaching the top of this it turns first ESE and then due E, running along the Colle Faustiniano. As far as the Casale Contrevio it is easily traceable by the abundance of loose paving-stones which mark its line, but beyond that its course is doubtful. Cassio (Memorie di S. Silvia, 26) states that it ran to the village of Casape, but Revillas on his map does not show it beyond the Casale Contrevio’ (Ashby, 1906: 132).

An article in volume xl of these Papers recorded something of the programme of work which is being undertaken by the British School at Rome, in collaboration with the Italian authorities, on the site of the earthquake-shattered medieval town of Tuscania, in the province of Viterbo some 90 kilometres north-west of Rome. In this article David Whitehouse has given a preliminary sketch of the magnificent series of medieval and post-medieval pottery, the recovery and evaluation of which constitutes one of the most challenging aspects of the situation created by the earthquake. The bulk of this pottery comes from pits which, having outlived their original function as storage pits, reservoirs or cess-pits, were backfilled with material which, though containing a few earlier pieces (as is almost inevitable on an urban site), was in almost all cases broadly homogeneous. In archaeological terms these are closed groups affording a remarkably clear terminus post quem non for the contents of each pit.

Much of the pottery from these pits is most attractive work, finding a ready market, and in a country where free enterprise flourishes and the State archaeological authorities are grossly understaffed, it is often a matter of hours between the discovery of a fresh pit and the disappearance of its finer contents. For this reason alone a high priority had from the start to be given to helping the staff of the Superintendency in the race to recover as many intact or near-intact groups as possible. On two occasions, in mid-winter 1972–73 and again later in 1973, groups of pits were cleared, on the first occasion by Peter Donaldson, John Morrish and Laura Glashan, and on the second by Mr. and Mrs. Gaylord, in both cases with the invaluable help of Sig. Enzo Marziale. Since then Sig. Marziale has himself recovered a number of other pits of which the lower parts were undisturbed, of which enough remained of the contents to justify their treatment as significant archaeological groups. Almost all of these pits contained, in addition to pottery, a wide range of other domestic throw-outs, notably broken glass vessels, small metalwork objects and organic refuse.

A large sample of animal bones and shells was recovered from the excavations of medieval deposits carried out in the centre of Tuscania in 1971 and 1972. The main part of the sample came from a series of pits or pozzi filled with domestic refuse. The six pozzi discussed in this report, designated Pits P1, P2, P3, P4, M4 and M20, span the greater part of the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Table 1 gives the basic analysis of the sample: the numbers of identifiable fragments are listed for the pozzi, which are arranged in chronological order.

Recent work on medieval Tuscania has included the study of the communal archives, notably by Don Lidano Pasquale, Luigi Pierdomenico and Giuseppe Giontella; publications on the architecture by Joselita Raspi Serra and others; and archaeological and topographical work carried out under the auspices of the British School at Rome. For the bibliography and archive sources, see Luttrell, 1971: 90–121; Whitehouse, et al., 1972: 196–238; add Ruysschaert, 1967–68, and Giontella, 1971–72. Some use has been made of the Libri del Consiglio which survive from 1449 onwards, but the registers of the Archivio Notarile e Giudiziario di Tuscania (now in the Archivio di Stato at Viterbo) have yet to be explored. Records of some nine notaries survive for the years 1457 to 1500; the materials are reasonably well written and preserved, and there is a detailed typescript index. This discussion merely presents one document from the earliest surviving register, that of Bartholomeo Thome, which is of particular interest as it shows that in 1458 the old civitas of Tuscania was considered to be ‘destroyed’ and ‘ruined’, and had become part of a rural tenimentum or tenuta. This document of 15 January 1458, published from Register 26 f.27–27v, refers to the Ciuitatis destructe et dirute. No attempt has been made to improve spelling or punctuation; the heavy contractions are often difficult to resolve, and significantly doubtful readings appear in square brackets. Another document at f.29–29v, which was drawn up four days later, concerns unum pectium terre situm in ten[imeri]to Ciuitatis tuscan[e] in Ciuitate deuastata et destructa.

The documents published below relate to an exceptional event in Sicilian and Maltese history: the presence on Malta to suppress a rebellion, which was actually led by the royal captain, of a Sicilian king supported by a foreign fleet, that of the Genoese. These documents were known to Gian Luca Barberi, who used information from them in his Capibrevi at the beginning of the sixteenth century, and to the great Maltese historian Gianfrancesco Abela, who was the first to make known a number of these documents concerning the Sicilian monarch's visit to Malta. Abela also knew, from another source, of the attack on the island by Genoese galleys under the command of Tommaso Morchio, but his interpretation of these events was inspired by a monarchical loyalism which led him to ignore the real implications of the documents of 1372 and to construct the hypothesis of a royal visit to Malta designed to restore a situation provoked by a Genoese invasion of the island.

Roberto Valentini seems to have been the first to discern the core of the truth. He understood that the enfeoffments and collations made by Frederick IV between 10 and 14 November 1372 were the price paid for the support of certain families in the reconquest of Malta and Gozo.