^{page 124 note 1} By kind permission of the owner, Miss Misen, and with the consent of the Works, several 4-yard squares were stripped, but only at some distance from the pit, in the hopes of finding other traces, but without result.

^{page 126 note 1} Proc. Prehist. Soc. vi, 48, where group B is like in form but not in filling.

^{page 126 note 2} e.g. compare no. 3 with Surrey A.C. xxii, fig. 25, from Leigh Hill, Cobham; no. 4 with a large jar from St. Martha's Hill, Surrey A.C. xliii, 115; no. 1 with the small one from the same site, ibid.; and no. 6 with a sherd from Cobham in Guildford Museum unfigured by Smith (but cf. Surrey A.C. xxii, fig. 26).

^{page 126 note 3} e.g. All Cannings Cross: our no. 6 with pl. 28. 18; our nos. 2, 4, 9 with pl. 30. 2, pl. 38. 6, pl. 39. 6, pl. 40. 2.

^{page 127 note 1} Leigh Hill, Cobham. Surrey A.C. xxii, 152.

^{page 127 note 2} Archaeologia Cantiana, li, 137–81, Excavations on Oldbury Hill, Igtham, 1938.

^{page 127 note 3} Sussex A.C. lxxx, 217–62.

^{page 127 note 4} Sussex A.C. lxxx, 235–6; Antiq. Journ. xx, 115–21.

^{page 127 note 5} Sussex A.C. lxxx, 245–6.

^{page 127 note 6} Arch. Cant. li, 158–70.

^{page 127 note 7} e.g. Highdown, Sussex A.C. lxxxi, 194, fig. 4 g–k.

^{page 127 note 8} e.g. Park Brow. Archaeologia, lxxvi, 19, figs, 10A, 10B.

^{page 128 note 1} Arch. Cant. li, 159.

^{page 128 note 2} Proc. Prehist. Soc. iv, 152; Sussex A.C. lxxx, 254.

^{page 128 note 3} See distribution map Arch. Cant. li, 157.

^{page 128 note 4} Shortly to be published by Mr. Lowther, in his paper on ‘The Iron Age in Surrey’.

^{page 128 note 5} Op. cit.

^{page 128 note 6} Except for an apparently early pedestal vessel found during the original excavations at Queen Mary's Hospital, Carshalton, a short distance south of the camp.

^{page 128 note 7} These wares are fully treated by Mr. Lowther in his forthcoming survey, ‘The Iron Age in Surrey’, Proc. Prehist. Soc.

^{page 128 note 8} An imported (Gallo-Belgic) type, though these were perhaps also made at Colchester.

^{page 128 note 9} Listed in Sussex A.C. lxxxi, 158.

^{page 128 note 10} Mr. Ward Perkins's term, Arch. Cant. li, 176–80.

^{page 128 note 11} A convenient term in non-Belgic districts for native wares showing Belgic influence.

^{page 128 note 12} At a time, significantly enough, when Belgic control over the whole of SE. Britain was being unified under Cunobelin.

^{page 129 note 1} Antiq. Journ. xvi, 268.

^{page 129 note 2} Ibid. xvi, 268; Oxoniensia, iv, 15.

^{page 129 note 3} References to haematite-coating in this paper must be taken to imply the Wessex technique unless it is otherwise stated.

^{page 129 note 4} Antiq. Journ. ii, 354.

^{page 129 note 5} Archaeologia, lxxvi, 18.

^{page 129 note 6} The writer has had the benefit of discussion on this point with Dr. A. E. Wilson.

^{page 129 note 7} Curwen, Archaeology of Sussex, 258–9, but see p. 136 below.

^{page 129 note 8} Sussex A.C. lxxx, 219–27; lxxxi, 182, 193. We are not here concerned with the distribution of this third-century haematite. It will be mapped and listed by Dr. Wilson in a forthcoming paper on the Sussex Iron Age.

^{page 130 note 1} Information by courtesy of Dr. A. E. Wilson.

^{page 130 note 2} Information kindly given by Mr. Ward Perkins and Mr. R. F. Jessup. The whole question of haematite will be considered by Dr. Wheeler in the forthcoming Maiden Castle Report.

^{page 131 note 1} Margate in Jessup, Archaeology of Kent, 132. Worth in Antiq. Journ. viii, 82.

^{page 131 note 2} Cf. Hawkes in Antiq. Journ. xx, 115–21.

^{page 131 note 3} Jessup, Arch. of Kent, 133.

^{page 131 note 4} Arch. Cant. xlviii, 160, 166.

^{page 131 note 5} Information from Mr. Lowther and Mrs. Piggott. The sherd shows fine-quality haematite and forms part of a rather large globular pot. Rim and base are missing.

^{page 131 note 6} Surrey A.C., Farnham volume, 207, pl. xx and fig. 88.

^{page 131 note 7} Antiq. Journ. iv, 42, fig. 5.

^{page 131 note 8} Sussex A.C. lxxx, 283.

^{page 132 note 1} Hengistbury Head, 42.

^{page 132 note 2} Wroxeter ii, 1913, fig. 8. 29.

^{page 132 note 3} Pitt-Rivers, Excavations, i, pl. xxxv, II.

^{page 132 note 4} Surrey A.C. xxii, pl. III, 27 and p. 153.

^{page 132 note 5} Hengistbury Head, class E, plates xi, xx. See also Fox, Arch. of the Cambridge Region, pl. xv, 1 (La Tène III).

^{page 132 note 6} Surrey A.C., Farnham volume, 207. Full publication forthcoming by A. W. G. Lowther, by whose courtesy I have this information.

^{page 132 note 7} From which, be it noted, must have been derived not only the haematite idea, but also, at this date, the actual material (see pp. 129, 136).

^{page 133 note 1} See Surrey A.C., Farnham volume, Iron Age section, especially p. 190.

^{page 133 note 2} Here may be mentioned in confirmation two sherds from Purbery Shot, Ewell, excavated in 1939 by Mr. Lowther and the writer. These were decorated with line-enclosed areas of ‘pitted’ filling on a reserved background. This style is at home in Wessex (vide All Cannings Cross); but here the pits were not so coarse and there were no surviving traces of any white filling. The lines enclosing the pitted zones, too, were curved, and the ware itself and its associations both compatible with a late date.

^{page 133 note 3} Arch. Cant. xlviii, 166; li, Oldbury Report, passim.

^{page 134 note 1} See Arch. Journ. lxxxvii, 291 et seq.

^{page 134 note 2} For further discussion on this point with numismatic evidence see Proc. Hants Field Club, xiv, pt. 3, 367.

^{page 134 note 3} Sussex A.C. lxxx, 237; Proc. Hants Field Club, xiv, pt. 3, 334.

^{page 134 note 4} Reported in Antiquity, xiii, Mar. 1939, where see pp. 77, 78. Antiq. Journ. xxi, 265–7.

^{page 135 note 1} Any large-scale incursion into Surrey at this time would have come from the east, where the entrance of the Belgic tribes into east Kent may have driven out the earlier occupants westwards. But at present it is not possible to trace any such movement, unless the Carshalton sherd provides a hint.

^{page 135 note 2} See Hawkes, Sussex A.C. lxxx, 235.

^{page 135 note 3} On this point see below, p. 136.

^{page 135 note 4} Antiquity, xv, June 1941, 201; Sussex A.C. lxxviii, 253–65.

^{page 135 note 5} Sussex A.C. lxxx, 259.

^{page 136 note 1} And it should be noted that the theory of the descent of raised bands from Iron Age A via Caburn I is itself open to objection. For Dr. Wilson tells me that here again there are no satisfactory links, the slashed decoration of Caburn I ware being applied direct to the vessel (or at best to small cordons), while the later manifestations are on quite large bands rather than cordons, and bands which are more often raised than applied.

^{page 136 note 2} Liddell, Proc. Hants Field Club, xiii, pt. 1, 23 (Meon Hill); Childe, Prehist. Communities of the Brit. Isles, 204.

^{page 136 note 3} In advance of his paper on this subject in the Maiden Castle Report.

^{page 138 note 1} It is interesting to note the survival-value in a backward area of a feature such as finger-printing, which is now being recognized (Curwen, Arch. of Sussex, 271; Hawkes, Sussex A.C. lxxx, 222, etc.) as the contribution of Late Bronze Age Deverel-Rimbury people to the amalgam of culture which resulted in areas where Late Hallstatt immigrants were in insufficient numbers to supersede, and could only combine.