The statement of L. Wickert that the numbers of the tribuniciae potestates of Gallienus (and of Valerian) are contradictory and also in part evidently wrong can also be applied to the numbering of the consulates of those rulers. There are, however, two kinds of discrepancy in the reckoning of imperial years in this period, caused respectively by ordinary blunders and by abnormal methods of numbering. As the latter kind of discrepancy does not alter the relative exactness of the chronology, abnormal reckoning has, rightly interpreted, the same documentary value as the strictly correct system. Inscriptions, of course, do not offer opportunities of discriminating between occasional mistakes and incorrect systems as the cause of error, but the character of erroneous reckonings can be discerned on coins through continuity of reckoning in successive years in any given mint.

In two papers published in 1933, ‘The Philippus in the West and the Belgic invasion of Gaul’ (Num. Chron. 1933, 88) and ‘The distribution of Gaulish and British coins in Britain’ (Antiquity 1933, 268), Dr. G. C. Brooke put forward, in explanation of the imitation in Gaul of the gold staters of Philip II of Macedon two centuries after their original issue, the theory that these coins were introduced into Central Gaul by the Romans about 120 B.C. when they came into contact with the tribes in that region, and that the Philippus had been ‘brought into normal currency in Rome’ in the second century B.C. after the arrival of great numbers of Philippi in the spoils of war from Greece and Asia Minor in the first half of that century. As Dr. Pink has pointed out, Dr. Brooke's date is several years too late to suit the literary evidence; but it need not be questioned that the gold stater of the type of Philip did not reach Gaul till long after the first issue in Macedon. That it came through Rome, however, does not seem to be supported by any archaeological facts, and involves a serious misconception of Roman monetary economics.

The objects published here with the kind permission of Dr. Jacob Hirsch are said to have been found at ‘Seki Bazar between Makli and Elmali’: the place is probably to be identified with the village Sekia, shown on the map in O. Benndorf and G. Niemann, Reisen im südwestlichen Kleinasien i, four miles north of the site of Oinoanda. Sekia lies about half-way along the road between Makri (Makli is unknown and is probably a mispronunciation of Makri) and Elmali. The internal evidence of the inscriptions confirms that the find must come from somewhere in SW Asia Minor. The find consists of two inscribed plaques with busts and fragments of a wreath. We first describe the objects, then comment on the inscriptions, and finally discuss the problems which arise from a study of them.

A certain number of extant inscriptions and oral traditions which still linger in remote places, as in the Djebel Nefouca, to the south of Leptis Magna and Oea, indicate that there was a time when the cult of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul existed in Roman Africa; but the distribution of evidence, which is largely derived from the fringes of the Roman province, in Mauretania and in southern Numidia, invites the question why places so far removed from the Latin influence of the proconsular province should show such interest in the see of Rome and its founders.

The Nerva Inscription in Beroea still lies, where Delacoulonche first reported it, on the right hand of the entrance to the Orta Cami. During a visit to Beroea in 1936, in the company of Mr. C. F. Edson of Harvard University, I was enabled to gather some fresh information about this dedication.

The slab of marble which bears the inscription is embedded in the ground on its side, so that the left half of the inscription has not been seen since the building of the Mosque, the raising of the heavy marble flags of the entrance being a formidable task without some mechanical aid. A rough-surfaced margin surrounds the smooth inscribed field. The lettering is elaborate Imperial, with many ligatures. H. 116 m. Exposed W. at top 0.53 m. Exposed W. at bottom 0.50 m.

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.

The creation of curatores rei publicae is a very important factor in the history of local government in the Roman Empire. For it cuts across the division of administration into the central and professional on the one hand and the local and amateur on the other. It brought an imperial official into the heart of that local governing body which presided over the affairs of its community, and gave to him the supervision of its property and financial arrangements. That this interference was caused not by a doctrinaire desire on the part of an emperor for the enlargement of the sphere of the central service, but by the needs of the communities themselves, is indicated by the varying times at which curatores appear in the various provinces. The first known curator in Africa belongs to A.D. 196—nearly a century after the office was initiated.