Excavation carried out between 1969 and 1970 before and during rebuilding work exposed most of the west end of the Roman bathing establishment. A new structural history (replacing Cunliffe 1969) was worked out involving five major periods with subsequent minor changes. The structural alterations are fully described and illustrated, together with details of trial trenches cut during building work. Pottery and finds, including bottle-shaped ceramic elements possibly used to construct vaults, are described. Limited work on the temple precinct will enable the plan to be extended and corrected.

The site whose excavation is the subject of this article was discovered during routine inspection of air photographs undertaken by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland as part of the preparatory work for the Inventory of Lanarkshire. The prints in question (National Air Survey sortie no. 541/A/530, prints 3137-–8) revealed the existence of what appeared to be a small ring-ditched enclosure a little way to the east of Beattock Summit, immediately to the north-east of the Roman road; it was situated at a height of 335 m (1100 ft.) O.D. on the lower slopes of Nap Hill, some 600 m (1970 ft.) north-north-west of Upper Howecleuch farmhouse (National Grid reference: NS 999153; FIG. 1).

In the late autumn of 1968 gravel-quarrying at Aldwincle, Northants., brought to light a timber bridge of the Roman period. The working face of the gravel-pit fortunately coincided with one side of the bridge, and thereby exposed the structure in section (PL. IX A). Excavation of the bridge was carried out by D. A. Jackson during the winter of 1968/9 under the sponsorship of the Ministry of Public Building and Works.

On 11 January 1975 a stone cist containing two inhumation burials and a series of iron objects was found in gravel-working at the Cairnmuirs Gravel Pit, west of the Roman fort at Camelon, Stirlingshire, now in the Falkirk district of the Central Region of Scotland (NS 860810). The two boys who made the initial discovery, David Vause and Wallace Wright, took a collection of bones and ironwork home, and their parents informed Camelon constabulary. The police took the matter up with Mr. J. M. Sanderson of Falkirk Museum and he asked the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland and the Ancient Monuments Inspectorate of the Department of the Environment for assistance in excavating the grave. Because of the risk of sandfalls, the excavation of what turned out to be the burial of two soldiers accompanied by their weapons was undertaken the following day by Dr. J. Close-Brooks, National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, Dr. D. J. Breeze, Department of the Environment, and Dr. J. N. G. Ritchie, Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland. Under Scottish law, objects of archaeological importance (not necessarily of precious metal) may be claimed as Treasure Trove, and the finders appropriately rewarded; accordingly the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer claimed the weapons for the Crown and Mr. Vause and Mr. Wright have been rewarded for their prompt reporting of the cist. A second sword found by a bulldozer driver in the gravelworkings at a rather earlier date was handed over at the same time, and also claimed by the Crown. Two other deposits, one of them in a cist, were found at Camelon in 1922 on the south-east side of the site, and the opportunity has been taken here to publish new illustrations of these finds. This report comprises a discussion of the known history of the fort, a description of the excavation of the most recent cist and of the deposits found in 1922, a discussion of the mode of burial, the status of the soldiers and of the weapons, and finally a detailed description of the individual objects.

During his excavation of the Roman fort at Waddon Hill, near Stoke Abbot, Dorset, in 1967, Dr Graham Webster found a coin of exceptional interest. It is the second known, and best yet, specimen of Mack 314, Evans XIII 7. It is now deposited on permanent loan at the British Museum.

The popular sculptures of the Roman Empire were for the most part produced by local artists working on behalf of local patrons. This is often clear both from their distinctive regional characteristics and from their geographical distribution. Any community of sufficient size to provide sculptors with a living would have had at least one workshop with its favourite motifs, types of monuments and stylistic idiosyncracies. The minimum size of a community necessary for the establishment of a workshop there to be an economically viable proposition cannot be determined, and the possibility that some sculptors had to supplement their incomes by other means is not to be ignored. Usually the area served by a workshop was restricted to the town in which the workshop was situated and its immediate vicinity. Although sculptures occasionally travelled further, there was no export trade comparable in scale to that in high-quality classical sculpture of the type sometimes labelled Hofkunst or arte colta. That Roman Carlisle should have had a workshop of its own is, in the circumstances, a reasonable supposition. Evidence for the activity of such a workshop is provided principally by a group of interrelated gravestones, which bear the reliefs of women and children and which have been found at Carlisle itself, Bowness-on-Solway and Old Carlisle. Since Carlisle was the largest community in the area and since most of these gravestones have been found there, it would appear to have been the centre of production.

A ROMANO-CELTIC bust was discovered in 1967 by Mr. C. N. Moore, then Assistant Curator of the Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum, set into a wall-niche in Chapel Cottage, Sutton Row, Sutton Mandeville, about ten miles to the west of Salisbury. It was purchased by the museum in 1968. Sor far it has only been summarily published – in JRS lviii (1968), p. 201, pl. 18, fig. 3 (front view, while still in the wall), in the Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum Annual Report 1967–1968, pp. 16, 17, pl. l, c (left profile view, after removal to the museum), and in Salisbury Heritage, 1973, p. 18, fig 32 (same view as the last). But photographs giving several other views — three-quarters to right and left and from the back — were taken, both before and after the bust's removal from the cottage wall, by Mr Moore, who has kindly given me permission to publish here a selection of those that show it as it is now displayed.

Poseidonios (c. 135—51 B.C.) has for long been regarded as the most important and influential source on the Celts writing before Caesar, and even as the most important ancient source on that subject without qualification. In order, however, to evaluate his contribution it is necessary to obtain an accurate reconstruction of his text, since no manuscript of his original work exists. Professor Tierney's monograph on Poseidonios's Celtic ethnography has for a long time been the fullest guide in English to this subject. It is valuable both as an introduction to Greek ethnography on the Celts and as a collection and translation of the main texts necessary for a reconstruction of Poseidonios's work. But it suffers from two major faults, which will be examined below. The first is the weakness inherent in the method of textual reconstruction by means of comparing texts thought to have drawn on the lost author; the second is the un-historical approach adopted by Tierney to his subject, which prevents him both from offering a realistic assessment of what Poseidonios could have known about the Celts, and from accepting Caesar as a source independent of Poseidonios. These two points of criticism of Tierney's article will be considered under separate headings.

The recent discovery at the legionary lime-kilns at Iversheim in Lower Germany of an inscription recording a magister calc(ariorum) in legion XXX Ulpia Victrix, a post hitherto unattested in the Roman army, raises the question of the use of the title magister in the lower ranks of the army.

Professor Michael Speidel has recently suggested that the abbreviation SC on military inscriptions does not, as is commonly thought, refer to singularis consularis but to summus curator. In some instances his interpretation is without doubt correct. However, his view that the five examples from Britain are not the guards of the provincial governor but chief accounts-clerks needs further consideration. Speidel argues that the post of singularis consularis is usually abbreviated to sing. or singul. cos. This is quite true, but it must be noted that examination of all the different examples of singulares shows that the post could be abbreviated in a large number of ways; even in the same document it may be written and abbreviated in different ways by the same clerk. At Apulum, the provincial capital of Dacia, no less than ten different ways are used on tile-stamps to refer to the governor's guards, while inscriptions there reveal a further three. Among the tile-stamps is the abbreviation SC, here without any doubt meaning singulares consularis; consequently, there is a firm Continental parallel for the traditional interpretation of the British examples, which Speidel would have changed. Presumably the British (and African) troops preferred a particular style of abbreviation, which was not so favoured elsewhere in the Empire. The only soldier in Britain who was without doubt a strator co(n)s(ularis) significantly and deliberately chose to write the first part of his title out in full, although this meant abbreviating and ligaturing his own name; this suggests that he wished to avoid confusion over the meaning of the normal abbreviation SC, which—in Britain at any rate—referred to singularis consularis.

Professor Rivet once wrote ‘One curious feature of Romano-British studies must be noted. This is the tendency, perhaps due to the intractable nature of the evidence, to create myths.’ It is the purpose of this paper to examine the evidence for one of those myths. It is not intended to investigate its origin or development, instructive though that might be.

The material upon which this study is based is the ornamented architectural stonework of Roman Britain. The decoration of architecture was an accepted feature of the way in which the Romans built, and is one which appears in Britain at all levels of achievement—in the comparative grandeur of the Corinthian capitals of the basilica at Silchester, in the neatly-turned columns which adorned such a villa as Great Witcombe (PL. XIX, A), and in the humble column-bases of the auxiliary fort at Housesteads.

Recent decades have seen many Romano-Celtic temples excavated in Britain, as a consequence of which evidence has accumulated which challenges the present consensus that they generally had surrounding porticos open to the weather. This interpretation is presented in most standard works on Roman Britain; for example, Professor S. S. Frere has written in Britannia: ‘In the civil zone, the majority [of cults] had much smaller temples of the Romano-Celtic type, where the small square shrine is surrounded by a square portico or cloister’. The same opinion can be traced back through the writings of Sir Ian Richmond and R. G. Collingwood to those of Haverfield. It stems ultimately from nineteenth-century studies in France and Germany, such as those of Fontenay, which anticipated the full presentation of the theory in Lehner's classic survey of Gallo-Roman temples. So far as English studies were concerned, the definitive statement was made in 1928 by the then Dr. Mortimer Wheeler. Among subsequent writers, only Penn and Goodchild and Kirk have expressed strong reservations. This paper seeks to review all the evidence available from Britain on this subject, as a result of which it is suggested that, contrary to previous opinions, the great majority of such temples had enclosed surrounding ambulatories. In the early stages of the discussion, only material from Britain has been considered. This has involved omitting any evidence from pictorial representations or upstanding structures, since neither category of evidence is represented in this province; discussion is focused entirely on the interpretation of excavated remains rarely exceeding a metre in height.

During the last half century a growing number of scholars have concerned themselves with the material remains of the later Roman and Migration periods. Discussion has centred, inter alia, on those classes of belt equipment which exhibit the kerbschnitt or ‘chip-carved’ manner of decoration, but surprisingly little mention has been made of those types of late Roman buckles and strap-ends that happen to fall outside the well-known categories of the ‘chip-carved’ material. The principal aim of the present paper is to propose a system of classification for these buckles and strap-ends, to discuss the evidence for their chronology, the likely area of their manufacture and the identity of those for whom they were intended. The catalogue which follows this discussion has been compiled primarily from a study of the published material, though it could be expected that a more extensive search in the museums and private collections of Europe and North Africa would substantially increase the number of pieces available for discussion. It is hoped that the evidence which this less well-known body of belt-equipment may afford will be of value to students of the later Roman military organization, both in Britain and on the continent.

Many units of the Roman army stamped the tiles which were manufactured in military tileries, and these tile-stamps can be useful in assigning structures to the units concerned; and ultimately they can also be employed as an aid to dating once the die-sequences have been established, or directly from imperial titles incorporated in the stamps. But it must be remembered that tiles were frequently re-used and can often therefore only indicate a terminus post quern.

The western end of Hadrian's Wall has received relatively far less archaeological study than the central and eastern sectors, and in the Solway area there is room for re-assessment. The final section of the stone-built wall was observed on 29 August 1707 running into the Solway some quarter mile west of the terminal fort at Bowness. Beyond this further forts along the Cumberland coast as far as Moresby and beyond have long been recognised along with a number of apparently isolated milefortlets in the northern section. To this picture, largely through the work of Bellhouse, has been added a growing collection of free-standing towers similar to the turrets of the mural system. Yet the system as hitherto known could be thought in-complete. For although Bowness marks the position of a ford, there is no major break in the southern Solway coastline until Moricambe, the combined estuary of the Rivers Waver and Wampool; that broad estuary marks a far more obvious point at which to terminate a linear defence system (FIG. I).

This paper contains the first attempt to illustrate Montans decorated bowls unconfused with the products of other factories. The Rossignol manuscript reveals that many Montans moulds and bowls have degenerate styles which are similar to bowls found in second-century contexts in Britain. In conclusion, the Hofmann system for the identification of master stylists is recommended for the study of South Gaulish decorated bowls.