The Roman villa on Lockleys Estate, Welwyn, was discovered accidentally in 1930. On that occasion a small portion of it was uncovered; but it was not until 1937 that, by the permission, and with the very generous co-operation, of the Welwyn Garden City Company, it proved possible to examine the site scientifically. The building was completely cleared; and although it was not sufficiently well preserved to justify the expense of preservation, the Garden City Company have undertaken to keep the site free of building, and the complete plan has been laid out on the surface in turf and brick. Of the many persons who by their help made the excavation possible I can only here record the work of Mr. W. R. Hughes, the secretary of the excavation committee, who bore the whole burden of the preliminary arrangements and gave invaluable help in the actual work of excavation and later in the preparation of this report; of Mr. A. E. Hick, who did nearly all the photography; and of Mr. Clarke, who undertook the whole of the surveying. My debt to Dr. Wheeler at all stages of the work is so apparent as hardly to need statement. To Dr. Davies Pryce also, to Mr. K. P. Oakley, and to Mr. Derek Allen I am deeply indebted for reporting respectively upon the Samian, the foreign stone, and the coins; to Mr. Hawkes for much help and advice, particularly in relation to the Colchester material; to Miss Kenyon for examining the fourth-century pottery; to Miss Scott for her collaboration upon many points of detail; and to all others who have given me their advice.

The small metal cruet (pl. LXXI) that is the subject of this communication was acquired by the British Museum as part of the collection of Sir Wollaston Franks, and all that is otherwise known of its history is that it had previously been in the collection of Lord Londesborough and is engraved in Fairholt's Miscellanea Graphica of 1857. It is a cire-perdue bronze casting in one piece, afterwards covered with a wash of copper and a coat of gilding, and it stands 7·2 cm. high without its lid, which is missing. It is a remarkable piece, chiefly because of the most unusual ornament on the body of the vessel which consists of two rows of identical symmetrical decorative units in relief in the form of a pair of birds in a foliate spray. It will be noticed that these birds are, so to speak, ‘locked’ into the foliage by their wings, and it will also be noticed that they are biting upwards at the leaves with a curiously emphatic gesture of the back-thrown head and gaping bill. The units of decoration are quite distinct; but they are set close enough together to give the effect of a rich and crowded surface-ornament; and it will be seen that the spaces between their tapering upper portions are filled by small lion-masks. Over the spout there is a variation in the character of the ornament, for here we have a single downward-biting bird standing on a thin foliate branch; so we see that the designer was able to adapt and modify the stereotyped pattern that so much attracted him; and there is no doubt that he was a craftsman of considerable humour and skill. He has turned the spout itself into a lion's head, not by modelling but by the use of incised lines, and he has cunningly employed spiral curves to suggest the shoulders of the beast. The simple scroll on the foot does not call for comment; but the handle should be noticed. It is in the form of a serpent issuing from an animal-mouth on the hinge of the cruet, and its quaint curly end is a most striking feature that adds considerably to the ragged, lumpy prettiness of this charming little vessel.

Only about ninety Great Seals of England are known for the period from the Conquest to the present day; and the addition of a new one to the series is a matter of some importance.

In a paper read to the Society not long ago I commented on Wyon's statement that the style of Henry V was changed during the last years of his reign as a result of the treaty of Troyes in 1420. Wyon had cited an order of the King to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the alteration of a seal in his custody, but had found no impression of a seal so altered. Actually the treaty did not specifically provide that the English King should use the title in question—Heres Regni Francie—but that the French King, his father-in-law, should during his own life refer to Henry in public documents in that way; and the seal in custody of the Chancellor was presumably that of the Exchequer. I was able, however, to show in illustration fragments of two Irish seals bearing, though they came to us from later reigns, the word heres in their legend; which could only date from this period. It seemed unreasonable in these circumstances to suppose that the most important of all the Royal Seals, the Great Seal of England, should not have been similarly modified; and I ventured to hope that an example from the last two years of the reign would presently be discovered and prove my case. That example has now been produced by Mr. Chitty from the Muniment Room at Winchester College (pl.LXXV).

The Romano-Celtic temples of Britain, unlike those of Gaul, rarely provide evidence of their dedications and the nature of the cults practised within them. At Silchester (Insula XXXV) and also at Worth, Kent, fragments of statuary found within the temple cella have been suggestive, although not conclusive. The remaining examples yet excavated in Britain (some eighteen in all) have been far less communicative: not one has yielded an inscription or votive object which would leave no doubt as to the identity of the god whose worshippers frequented it.

Since our knowledge of the local cults popular in the civilian areas of Roman Britain is so limited, an object which, though found ninety years ago at Farley Heath in Surrey, has hitherto escaped publication deserves belated recognition not only for its own sake, because it displays very curious features, but also for the light that it may throw on the subject.

In view of the stimulating discoveries made by Messrs. Schwantes and Rust in the districts of Hamburg and Kiel, I am prompted to write a preliminary note on two Mesolithic ‘floors’ recently discovered in the Ebbsfleet Valley, west of Northfleet, on the right bank of the Lower Thames. The horizons in question are located in a stoneless calcareous silt containing shells of both land and freshwater types. Subsequent erosion phases have considerably denuded the silt, which, at the present time, is overlain by some 6 ft. of alluvial deposits. The marked differences between the implements of the lower and upper ‘floors’ are best summarized as under:

1. The artifacts from the lower ‘floor’ are invariably patinated blue or white, whilst those from the upper ‘floor’ are always in an unaltered condition.

2. The blades from the lower ‘floor’ are much longer and broader than are those from the upper ‘floor’; some of the former attain 7½ in. in length (figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5).

3. Core-scrapers are not present in the lower ‘floor’ though of common occurrence in the upper ‘floor’.

4. The gravers from the lower ‘floor’ (figs. 6 and 7) approximate more closely to those of Upper Palaeolithic times than do the examples from the upper ‘floor’ (fig. 8).

5. Though none has so far been recovered from the lower ‘floor’, the upper ‘floor’ has yielded shouldered points (figs. 9 and 10), a characteristic form in the Hamburg culture.