The site (map ref. ST4242 3951) lies on a small line of hills called the Nidons, which run EW along the N edge of the Polden ridge in mid Somerset (fig. 1). The crest of one of the Nidon ‘hills’ runs across the centre of the field containing the site. To the north, the land slopes down to the floodplain of the river Brue, which in the Roman period would have been a raised bog. To the south, the land dips slightly before rising again towards the top of the Polden ridge. The local geology is Jurassic Lower Lias, which is clay with some limestone; the soil (Evesham 1) is a well-drained calcareous clay.

On September 14, 1998, two metal detectorists, Martin and Kevin Elliot, found a very large hoard of Roman silver denarii in a ploughed field on this ridge in Shapwick parish. The first coin find was made at the N edge of the field. The same plough furrow was then followed south across the field, yielding small numbers of coins until a group of about 70 coins was found; after half an hour the main body of coins was discovered quite close to the group of 70. The distribution of the coins across the field shows that the hoard had suffered considerable plough damage but some 9000 coins were still in situ with the corrosion products on their surfaces still intact (by contrast, the coins which had been moved by the plough had lost their corroded outer layers and therefore appeared cleaner). No photographs or other records were taken by the finders before they removed the coins, but their verbal description has proved useful. In the undisturbed main body the coins appeared to be arranged in neat individual rows on their sides, suggesting that they may have been deposited in small coin rolls or individually wrapped bundles made of an organic material such as textile or leather (since decayed). The individual rolls were probably contained within a larger sack also made of organic material (the roughly circular shape of the hoard argues against the use of a wooden box).

L'obélisque d'Arles est mentionné pour la première fois en 1389, au sud de la ville, au-delà des murs, sur l'emplacement du cirque romain dont il ornait la spina. Il fut redécouvert en 1565 et était alors scindé en deux grands fragments de 4,60 m pour la partie supérieure et de 10,80 m pour la base, et une pointe, signalée au XVIe s. dans le couvent des religieuses de Saint-Césaire, qui n'a malheureusement jamais été retrouvée. Depuis son érection entre les 20 et 26 mars 1676 devant l'Hôtel de Ville pour la plus grande gloire de Louis XIV (fig. 1), il fut l'objet d'un vif débat quant à l'origine de la roche le composant. L'attribution à une carrière varoise et plus particulièrement de l'Esterel qui fut longtemps retenue, est désormais à écarter. On dispose actuellement d'indications quant à une possible provenance orientale, bien que non égyptienne. Cette nouvelle identification permet de reprendre le dossier de l'obélisque et de proposer une date pour son installation.

Pour L. Lazzarini, la pierre serait une quartzo-monzonite provenant d'une carrière située près d'Alexandrie de Troade (Turquie) qui n'a commencé à exporter qu'à partir du IIe s. et qui connut son apogée durant l'Antiquité tardive. On peut donc supposer que la mise en place de cet obélisque au milieu du cirque remonte vraisemblablement à cette dernière période et l'obélisque arlésien serait alors l'un des rares monolithes d'origine orientale, sinon le seul, installé pendant l'Antiquité en Occident en dehors de tous ceux destinés à décorer Rome.

The Via Egnatia has attracted limited attention over the last half-century. The ancient road, crossing Albania between Durrës (Dyrrachium) and Qafe Thane, was one of the major thoroughfares of antiquity, and it remained in use until modern times. This brief report describes the work of the new Albanian Rescue Archaeology Unit, working in collaboration with the Institute of Archaeology of Albania, in an attempt to document parts of the road which may be threatened by infrastructure development.

The survey was organised during April and May 2000 and involved both systematically walking the line followed by the Via Egnatia and visiting sites of different periods that developed along it. During the first season, our survey concentrated upon the area between Bradashesh (identified as the mutatio Ad Quintum of the Roman itineraries), near Elbasan, and Qukës (mutatio In Tabernas of the Itinerarium Burdigalense, or Très Tabernae of the Antonine Itinerary) (fig. 1).

Durres (at various times in the past known as Epidamnos, Dyrrachium and Dyrrachion) lies on the Adriatic coast of Albania, c.35 km west of Tirana. The town has been continuously occupied, in some form or other, at least since the Archaic Greek period. Today it presents itself to the modern traveller arriving across the Adriatic as a busy and rapidly changing port. The relationship of the town with the sea has shaped its urban dynamic in ways which, as yet, are imperfectly understood. Modern Durres lies at the S tip of a peninsula c.10 km in length. The land to the northwest of the town is hilly, and this terrain extends as far as the ancient remains known as Porto Romano, c.7 km north of the town. The land northeast of the town is flat and low-lying, currently arable farmland criss-crossed by small irrigation canals (fig. 1). It was drained and reclaimed from marshland under the Communist régime. The overall impression of the topography around Durres (fig. 2) is that the area of high ground had once been an island, detached from the mainland or joined only by a sandbar, and that this relationship has fluctuated over time as a result of small seismic shifts, rising sea levels, and other factors. Any understanding of the town over time has to be placed against as accurate as possible an understanding of these and other features of what is a rapidly changing environment.

Kessener's comprehensive and scholarly contribution, which bravely tackles the basic science in some detail and which will surely be an enduring reference, nevertheless perpetuates some technical misunderstandings that recur in the literature. I begin with the term “siphon”. It is unfortunate that this term continues to be used. The term applies to the situation when, at some point in a closed conduit, the hydrostatic pressure is less than atmospheric. It is not just that the overwhelming proportion of the innumerable pipe systems in the world never know sub-atmospheric pressure and should not be confused with this unusual arrangement, which warrants a technical term of its own (indeed, many modern textbooks do not mention siphons); but to introduce the term inappropriately also leads to misleading reporting and misconceptions. When we reach the discussion of the hydraulics of this system, real siphons find their way into the argument (p. 125), though the evidence shows that there was no siphon at Aspendos. The presence of air pockets and so on is almost irrelevant to operations if no point in the system lies above the Hydraulic Grade Line; were it not so, no garden hose would work reliably.

It is quite true that the problems of getting a siphon to start and to keep it running are significant: even without leaks, air tends to come out of solution and will eventually destroy the liquid column. But in a pipe system which does not go sub-atmospheric, the inverse (if we might dare to use the word) applies: air trapped at a high point will tend to be taken into solution, and the confused internal flow at such a point will be very efficient at entraining and so removing air. Just as a garden hose may splutter when first turned on, very rapidly all air is expelled from the system and there is no question that flow will eventually be established without further intervention.

In his article in this issue, R. Tybout has some harsh words (38-39) for an article by S. Yerkes published in JRA 13. T.'s reaction seems to involve not so much a scholarly disagreement as a major misunderstanding of Yerkes' paper. I would like to offer a brief corrective to his comments.

T. seems under the impression that the identification of Vitruvius' monstra is the main — or only — point of Yerkes' essay. This is probably because of the title. The paper is a radically reduced presentation of the argument of the author's master's thesis which was entitled “Neo-Attic motifs in Roman painting”. And the identification of some of the sources for the monstra — as motifs in much earlier Roman marble furnishings — is actually the main thrust of her argument. Her original title for the article also included a reference to “neo-Attic motifs” but that was omitted by the editor after it was submitted to JRA. T. is dismayed that Yerkes fails to cite the chapter on Vitruvius 7.5.3 ff. in W. Ehrhardt's monograph Stilgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (T. 1, n.l). Now, Yerkes is well aware of this work and cites it in her thesis, together with another paper Ehrhardt published on “Vitruv und die zeitgenössische Wandmalerei” in KJb 1991. So she could — and perhaps should — have included Ehrhardt's work in her notes, as T. suggests; perhaps including fuller references to other past scholarship too. But T. goes on to make the extraordinary claim (38 n.30) that Ehrhardt's chapter renders Yerkes' observations “largely superfluous”. I cannot follow T. here, for Ehrhardt's essay actually has a quite different aim and focus; and the differences are worth underlining.