Several of the principal sources of coarse pottery in Roman Britain have recently been subject to review. The extensive groups of kilns, largely in Cantley parish, 2 km south-east of Doncaster (FIG. I), have, however, tended to be neglected due to publication delays. Some attempt to remedy this situation is here provided.

In November 1977, a large relief sculpture of Romandate was discovered during drainage work on farmland in the parish of Brant Broughton and Stragglethorpe in Lincolnshire. The sculpture had been unearthed by a mechanical excavator in the process of recutting the sides of a field-boundary dyke. Although it was not possible to examine the sculpture in situ, it had apparently been found lying face downwards in a shallow scoop in the subsoil below a residual east-west plough ridge of the broad ridge-and-furrow cultivation which until recently had covered the field. Apart from a fine follis of Licinius I (A.D. 308–324), the sculpture was not found in association with any other Roman material. Part of a worn and battered Roman altar and heavy concentrations of Romano-British pottery and building stone were later found after ploughing some 200 m to the north-west, and fieldwork has located a series of such concentrations in the surrounding fields. Air photographs of the immediate area show an enclosurecomplex together with a pit-alignment nearby. Two kilometres to the west aerial photography has pin-pointed enclosures of probable Romano-British date in the parish of Beckingham and occasional finds of Roman material have been recorded over the years in Brant Broughton.

The recent excavations at La Graufesenque have uncovered a number of new graffiti. One of these (A25b) is considered here for the light it sheds on the Latin name for samian ware or terra sigillata.

The potteries that produced samian ware at La Graufesenque have long been known for the graffiti, now numbering about a hundred, which were scratched onto the plates made in the kilns there. The graffiti have been used to elucidate the organization and the possible methods of production at the potteries, although the cryptic and fragmentary nature of most of them has made detailed discussion difficult. The common formula of the texts consists of a list of potters, each coupled with a name of a particular vessel and a number representing the amount of that pottery produced within a time-span that is not now ascertainable. A25b, and a small portion of a similar text, A26b, stand out from amongst these, however, as they appear to give a monthly tally of tasks carried out by various slaves. The names of these slaves also appear on other graffiti of the more usual sort and it can be reasonably assumed that A25b is also connected with the pottery industry. In fact, certain words in it bear this out, as the text and translation which follow demonstrate.

During the course of discussions on the garrison of Inchtuthil with a pupil who is preparing the site for publication, it became clear that one of the site's most serious problems concerns the composition of the first cohort of the legion. The plan of the fortress shows the barracks of nine cohorts arranged with their centurion's quarters next to the via sagularis, each with six barracks per cohort. The position of the legion's first cohort, however, which is situated on the via principalis to the right of the principia, is occupied by a cohort of ‘double’ strength; the plan shows ten barrack-buildings (FIG. I), which are fronted by five courtyard houses such as would suit the five centurions of cohors i, and nearer the principia there is extra accommodation, apparently consisting of one and a half barrack blocks and a row of tabernae, which it is not the purpose of this paper to discuss. It is clear that, whatever function these barracks served, they differ from the main range of ten.

I shall assume that Gildas wrote towards the middle of the sixth century and that he composed the De Excidio much as Mommsen printed it. I shall also assume that, apart from the works of St Patrick, his book is the only British literary source of authentic information about the history of Britain in the mid-fifth century. To be sure, Bede's conjectures deserve careful attention, but scholars (apart from Dr D. N. Dumville) have unwisely disregarded Mommsen's words about the De Excidio: ‘unicus liber omnino qui eius saeculi condicionem insulae publicam aliqua luce illustret’.

Since the first discovery of its remains in 1790, or rather since Samuel Lysons published his exceptionally fine reconstruction-drawing of it in 1802, the Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath has remained outstanding among the monuments of Roman Britain that are known to have been built and decorated in the classical style. It has, however, proved difficult to establish its date. There are two available sources for this, in the absence of any inscription: the archaeological evidence, and the ornament of the temple's architecture. Cunliffe has summarized what little can be said of the former: although the precinct wall appears to post-date the wall of the reservoir of the baths, the temple itself may well have been built before its precinct was enclosed; since it is likely that the baths and the temple were planned together, the late first-century date indicated for the baths renders probable a first- or early second-century date for the other buildings. The arguments depend on circumstantial evidence. Unless excavations in the future produce more closely-datable archaeological material, it would seem that we are not on very strong ground here.

By the time that the Romans had become involved in the affairs of Britain the use of client-kings as an instrument of foreign policy and military strategy was well-established. It is hardly surprising, then, that the employment of local chieftains, often against other local chieftains, should have been an important aspect of Caesar's policy. It was also a policy maintained by Claudius nearly a century later when he undertook the final conquest of Britain. The names of some of the rulers who threw in their lots with the Romans, such as Bodvoc(us), Cartimandua, Prasutagus, are of course, familiar, but none is more celebrated than the man generally considered the perfect exemplum of the British client-king, Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus. We have grown accustomed to thinking of Cogidubnus as a ruler who unreservedly embraced Roman authority and the Roman way of life, and who throughout his career epitomizes the benefits that Roman civilization can bestow on other nations. So prominent a place is he given in general accounts of the conquest, and so vivid a personality has he acquired, that it comes almost as a suprise to realize that there are only two ancient references to Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus.

The timber gateways of the Roman forts and fortresses of Britain show considerable variation, but with a few exceptions they fall into a series of clearly defined types, all capable of subdivision. They may be classified on increasing size and complexity, although, as will be shown in the final discussion, this arrangement has no chronological significance.

At Annals 14. 29. 1, Tacitus begins his account of the rebellion led by Boudicca in Britain with Caesen〈n〉io Paeto et Petronio Turpiliano consulibus gravis clades in Britannia accepta. The rebellion is described by Tacitus in Annals 14. 29–39. All scholars who have dealt with this revolt have realized that the events narrated cover more than one year. These events must cover parts of two years: at least part of one campaigning season (Suetonius's attack on Mona [Anglesey] and his battle with Boudicca), plus a winter, during which the governor of Britain was changed, and the period when Petronius was governor. Hitherto, Tacitus's habit of giving the events of more than one calendar year under one annalistic year in his discussion of the Armenian Wars has been cited to prove that he does this. A nearer instance is his discussion of British affairs prior to the revolt. Tacitus records the events of separate years together and tells why: haec, quamquam a duobus [Ostorio Didioque] pro praetoribus plures per annos gesta, coniunxi, ne divisa haud perinde ad memoriam sui valerent (Annals 12. 40. 5). Without doubt, he has done the same in his account of the rebellion.

In about 1827 a small hoard of coins and jewellery was found whilst ploughing at Castle-thorpe, Buckinghamshire. The hoard consisted of a pair of silver bracelets, a silver ring with a cornelian intaglio showing Bonus Eventus, and silver and bronze coins, the latest of which belonged to the reigns of Antoninus Pius (138–161) and Verus (161–169). The hoard had been contained in a ‘small black urn’ which was not recovered at the time. During a recent detailed study of the jewellery, which is now in the British Museum, it was observed that the bracelets were inscribed.