^{page 251 note 1} Antiq. Journ., xlvii (1967), 254–9Google Scholar. A resistivity survey, carried out by Mr. A. J. Clark, F.S.A., before the 1967 excavation, confirmed the suspected entrance and helped in the layout of the trenches.

^{page 253 note 1} Cunliffe, Barry, Winchester Excavations 1949–60, i (1964), pp. 1–18Google Scholar; Antiq. Journ. xlv (1965), 234–5Google Scholar.

^{page 255 note 1} Hawkes, C. F. C. et al. , Saint Catharine's Hill, Winchester (1930)Google Scholar, fig. 3, pp. 4–6.

^{page 255 note 2} Cunliffe, op. cit., pp. 9, 15; C. F. C. Hawkes et al., op. cit., p. 186. Cf. Antiq. Journ. xlv (1965), 233Google Scholar, n. 4.

^{page 255 note 3} H. C. Bowen and P. J. Fowler, ‘Romano-British rural settlements in Dorset and Wiltshire’, in Charles Thomas (ed.), Rural Settlement in Roman Britain (C.B.A. Research Report 7,1966), pp. 45–6.

^{page 255 note 4} This date does not exclude the possibility that settlement began as early as the second century B.C., or as late as the early part of the first century A.D. Until the dating of the later stages of the Wessex Iron Age has been placed on a firmer footing, it is pointless to strive for greater precision, or to enter into a discussion of the exact relationship in time and function between St. Catharine's Hill and Winchester I.

^{page 256 note 1} See n. 1, p. 255 above.

^{page 257 note 1} Antiq. Journ. xlvii (1967), 255–7, fig. 4.

^{page 258 note 1} Antiq.Journ. xlvii (1967), 225Google Scholar, fig. 1, 1.

^{page 258 note 2} The Hampshire County Council and the Governors of Lankhills School gave permission for, and encouraged, the excavation, which was paid for by Winchester College. Equipment was loaned by the Winchester City Council, the Winchester Excavations Committee, and Lankhills School. Conservation was undertaken by the Winchester City Museums. The labour force was recruited from Winchester College, with some additional help from the boys of Lankhills School. The work was directed by Giles Clarke with advice from the staff of the Winchester excavations.

^{page 258 note 3} Antiq. Journ. xliv (1964), 190–3, fig. 2, pls. XLV–XLVII a; ibid, xlv (1965), 240, fig. 2.

^{page 258 note 4} For a plan of these structures based on nineteenth-century and later records see ibid, xliv (1964), 191, fig. 2.

^{page 259 note 1} Ibid. 192, pl. XLV, layers 7 to 14.

^{page 259 note 2} Ibid. 193, 217–19.

^{page 259 note 3} Colvin, H. M. (ed.), The History of the King's Works, ii (1963), pp. 855Google Scholar, 857, 860, fig. 65.

^{page 259 note 4} Antiq. Journ. xlvi (1966), 313–19Google Scholar; xlvii (1967), 259–66.

^{page 259 note 5} Ibid, xlvii (1967), pl. L; cf. xlvi (1966), 315, fig. 4.

^{page 262 note 1} The following account modifies the sequence put forward last year: Antiq. Journ. xlvii (1967), 260–2Google Scholar, pl. L. For the latest medieval structures in IX and X, see n. 4, p. 259 above.

^{page 263 note 1} Antiq. Journ. xlvi (1966), 317Google Scholar; xlvii (1967), 262–3.

^{page 263 note 2} For a plan and photograph of Phase Bz, see ibid. pls. XLVIIIa, L; for photographs of By, see ibid. pls. XLVI, XLVIIIb. The plan of By is shown in the present report, fig. 3, with the houses with which this phase is approximately contemporary.

^{page 263 note 3} The eastern limit of the Phase A walls shown in Antiq. Journ. xlvii (1967), pl. L, must now be modified due to the discovery of the Phase Bx rebuilding. The greatest length of the Phase A church now recognized is about 57 m. (19 feet).

^{page 263 note 4} Med. Arch, iv (1960), 143Google Scholar.

^{page 263 note 5} CunlifFe, Barry, Winchester Excavations 1949–60, i (1964), pp. 43–5Google Scholar, fig. 10. St. Rumbold's Church, excavated in 1954, appears to be Norman in origin (Butcher, S., ‘Excavations in St. George's Street, Winchester, 1954: Interim Report’, Proc. Hants. F.C. xix, i (1955), 3–4Google Scholar).

^{page 265 note 1} See n. 2, p. 263 above.

^{page 265 note 2} Antiq. Journ. xlvii (1967), 264–5Google Scholar, pl- L; cf. ibid, xlvi (1966), 317–18, fig. 4.

^{page 265 note 3} For a comment on this arrangement, see Barley, M. W., The English Farmhouse and Cottage (1961), pp. 49–50Google Scholar.

^{page 266 note 1} Antiq. Journ. xlvii (1967), 265Google Scholar.

^{page 267 note 1} Ibid. pl. L.

^{page 268 note 1} Antiq. Journ. xlvii (1967), 266–72Google Scholar. For interim reports on excavations in 1962–5, see ibid, xliv (1964), 202–11; xlv(1965), 249–58; and xlvi (1966), 319–26.

^{page 268 note 2} Ibid, xliv (1964), 203–6, fig. 6.

^{page 269 note 1} Ibid, xlvi (1966), 320.

^{page 270 note 1} Antiq. Journ. xliv (1964), 206Google Scholar; xlvi (1966), 320.

^{page 270 note 2} Vetusta Monumenta, iii (1796), 13, fig. 4Google Scholar; cf. Med. Arch.v (1961), 21–34, 41–5, fig. 13.

^{page 270 note 3} Jope, E. M., ‘An Inlaid Knife from Winchester’, Antiq. Journ. xxvi (1946), 70–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pl. xi a, b; cf- V. I. Evison, ibid, xxxv (1955), 29.

^{page 272 note 1} In. Antiq. journ. xliv(1964), pl.LVIII, ‘Robbertrench A’ would now appear to be the Roman rubble foundation for the wall represented by Robber-trench D. The projection of layer 32 over layer 18 in A—B, which previously denied this interpretation, must now be reconsidered in view of the very strong evidence elsewhere in favour of this interpretation: hence, inter alia, the need for further excavation in this area.

^{page 272 note 2} Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s.a. 643 (Parker), 642 (B and C), 641 (E), but this entry can only refer to some date during Kenwalh's reign, since he was not baptized until 646. The F text places the building and consecration (to St. Peter) under 648, a date which seems inherently probable in view of Kenwalh's baptism two years before.

^{page 272 note 3} Radford, C. A. Ralegh, ‘The Bishop's Throne in Norwich Cathedral’, Arch. Journ. cxvi (1959), 115–32Google Scholar, esp. 121–31,‘The Synthronon in Western Usage’.

^{page 273 note 1} The use of such lacing-beams is well known in Roman and Norman architecture, but the closest parallel in date is the tenth-century structure of St. Bavon at Ghent: F. de Smidt, Opgravingen in de Sint-Baafsabdij te Gent, De Abdijkerk (Ghent, 1956), pp. 35–7, 55–8, figs. 14, 15, 32–5.

^{page 273 note 2} Clapham, A. W., English Romanesque Architecture before the Conquest (1930), p. 148Google Scholar, fig. 48.

^{page 273 note 3} Excavation in 1968 confirmed that the tomb-chamber was later than the chalk foundation, but also showed that the latter is probably later than the construction of the New Minster, c. 903. Although many burials in the area were earlier than the tomb-chamber, no trace was found of an earlier grave which could have been that for which the tomb- chamber was (subsequently) constructed. The absence of such a grave does not mean however that the tomb-chamber did not mark the site of St. Swithun's original grave, since the grave could have been entirely removed in digging the relatively deep foundations of the tomb-chamber. See also n. 3 on p. 276.

^{page 274 note 1} [Frithegodi Monachi Breuiloquium Vitae Beati Wilfredi et] Wulfstani Cantoris Narratio Metrica de Sancto Swithuno (ed. Campbell, A., Thesaurus Mundi, Zürich, 1960), p. 66Google Scholar, Epistola, 11. 41–4.

^{page 274 note 2} On these works, see Quirk, R. N., ‘Winchester Cathedral in the Tenth Century’, Arch. Journ. cxiv (1957), 28–64Google Scholar.

^{page 274 note 3} Antiq. Journ. xlvii (1967), pl. LIXGoogle Scholar.

^{page 275 note 1} See n. I, p. 274 above, 11. 41–2.

^{page 275 note 2} Quirk, op. cit. pp. 44–56, referring to Wulfstan (op. cit., in n. I, p. 274 above), 11. 41–61.

^{page 275 note 3} Willis, R., ‘The Architectural History of Win-Chester Cathedral’, Proceedings of the Arch. Inst., Winchester 1845 (1846), p. 15Google Scholar, n.

^{page 275 note 4} Clapham, A. W., English Romanesque Architecture before the Conquest (1930), p. 97Google Scholar.

^{page 276 note 1} Antiq. Journ. xlvii (1967), 271. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the grave of St. Swithun was correctly identified at the time of his translation in 971, a point which needs extensive discussion in the final report.

^{page 276 note 2} Quirk, op. cit., pp. 38–41.

^{page 276 note 3} See n. 2 above. The 1968 excavations suggest that the chalk foundation and the tomb-chamber may both be later than 903. If this is correct, it follows that the tomb-chamber is either a subsequent erection on the site of the original grave, or conceivably a structure prepared to receive the saint's body in 971, when it was translated from an original grave elsewhere. The latter possibility raises immense problems concerning the whole development of the Old Minster which cannot be solved without excavation further west in 1969. The following paragraphs are thus only one interpretation of one of several possible situations.

^{page 276 note 4} This cross is described by Lantfred (but not Wulfstan) as stone (Quirk, op. cit., p. 39, n. 3). It may be suggested that the slot (Feature 25, pl. LXVIII), found between the tomb and the west end of the nave, represents a timber forerunner to this stone cross. If the latter stood on the flagging of the atrium, no trace of it need have survived.

^{page 277 note 1} Wulfstan says he was a boy at the time. Both he and Lantfred may have joined the monastery after the demolition of the vestibule, of which therefore they could only have heard, if at all, by word of mouth. They did not write down their accounts until more than twenty years after the translation, when an earlier arrangement would have been of only antiquarian interest. Both accounts are preserved in a very fine manuscript which Professor Wormald has suggested may have been prepared for use in connection with St. Swithun's shrine (Quirk, op. cit., p. 31). Antiquarian discussion, even if conceivable at this period, would have been even more out of place in such a work.

^{page 277 note 2} Quirk, op. cit., pp. 56–9. This distinction was preserved throughout the middle ages, with the relics at the east end of the Norman cathedral, and the tomb-site preserved outside the north door of the nave.

^{page 277 note 3} Heitz, Carol, Recherches sur les rapports entre architecture et liturgie à l'époque carolingienne (Paris, 1963), pp. 78–9Google Scholar.

^{page 277 note 4} Ælfric, Lives of Three English Saints (ed. G. I. Needham, 1966), p. 79 (St. Swithun, 11. 359–61).

^{page 279 note 1} Quirk, op. cit., p. 65, n. 6.

^{page 281 note 1} For previous interim reports, see Antiq. Journ. xliv (1964), 212–14Google Scholar; xlv (1965), 258–60; xlvi (1966), 326–8; and xlvii (1967), 272–6. The plan of the palace based on the results of excavation in 1963–6, published in the last interim report (ibid. xlvii (1967), pi. LX), has not been sufficiently augmented to justify its publication again here. It will be republished in the next interim when the results of work in the south and west ranges will be available.

^{page 281 note 2} I am most grateful to Mr. Geoffrey Dannell for reporting on the samian.

^{page 283 note 1} Carol Heitz, op. cit., in n. 3, p. 277, pls. v, viii a.

^{page 283 note 2} Giraldus Cambrensis, Vita S. Remigii, cap. xxvii: in Opera, ed. J. F. Dimock (Rolls Series, 1877), vii, 46.

^{page 284 note 1} Antiq. Journ. xlvi (1966), 328Google Scholar.