Accounts of air reconnaissance in Britain have already been printed in this Journal (XLI, for north Britain; XLIII, for south Britain): the present paper records recent discoveries, bringing the previous records up to date.

Of the last five summers only in 1955 was there a marked drought favourable to the development of crop marks; but it has been possible to observe different parts of the country under a wide variety of conditions. These have allowed advantage to be taken of different combinations of weather, crops, and soil, so that a buried site invisible one year might be seen in another. Moreover, opportunities for reconnaissance in March and April have meant that large areas could be observed soon after spring ploughing, when soil-patterns in bare fields often reveal disturbances in the ground. These conditions have been particularly valuable for studying Celtic field-systems on the chalk downs and traces of ancient agriculture in the Fenland.

In the north, reconnaissance has revealed an interesting new group of military works, apparently of early date, at Troutbeck on the margin of the Lake District, besides yielding much fresh information at sites already known. This is particularly true of the extensive Roman sites in Scotland that often now lie within several different fields, not all of which are under suitable crops in any one year. Two forts, two signal-stations, and some sixteen temporary camps may be added to the list of discoveries given in JRS XLI.

The traditional date for the Syrian governorship of M. Titius, ‘about 10 B.C.’, is derived from a passage in Josephus, where he is referred to in connection with Herod's supposed ‘third journey’ to Rome. The circumstances of this third journey have caused considerable perplexity to those who have investigated the details of the reign of Herod the Great. The trouble is due to a confusion in Josephus himself, who can be shown to be narrating a series of events as occurring after, which in reality refer to the years immediately before, 12 B.C. The ‘third journey’ was never undertaken or, indeed, contemplated, and the context in which the name of Titius occurs is to be dated to 12 B.C. and not later.

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.

Fifty years separated the Declaration of Corinth in 196 and the destruction of Corinth in 146, two milestones in the history of Graeco-Roman relations. Exactly midway between these two events comes the embassy of Q. Marcius Philippus, notorious for a piece of sharp practice which aroused the compunction of a section of the Roman Senate itself, and as the prelude to a war regarded by many in Greece as the first step in a policy which was to end in the ruin of two of the greatest cities of the Mediterranean world. The object of the following note is to examine in some detail the date and purpose of this embassy.

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.