^{page 225 note 1} Catalogue of Antiquities found in the Excavations at the New Royal Exchange, p. xii.

^{page 225 note 2} Archaeologia, lx, 225Google Scholar.

^{page 225 note 3} Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass., xxxvii, 90Google Scholar.

^{page 225 note 4} Ibid., 90–1.

^{page 228 note 1} Arch. Rev., i, 273Google Scholar.

^{page 228 note 2} The originals in the Guildhall Library are in pencil on yellow tracing-paper, and cannot therefore be satisfactorily photographed. The figures published herewith are reproduced from ink tracings. I did not learn till these tracings were being made that Mr. Norman and Mr. Reader had already taken some steps towards the publication of the Gardner set. I have to thank them for very generously waiving the claim to priority of publication, which their work on Roman London undoubtedly gave them.

^{page 229 note 1} See the Antiquary, April 1915, and Hettner, Führer durch Trier.

^{page 234 note 1} A. Blanchet, Les Enceintes Romaines de la Gaule, p. 251; see pis. iii–v and xi–xvi for examples of this type of wall in Gaul.

^{page 235 note 1} See Topographical Index of V. C. H. London, under Cornhill, Gracechurch Street, Leadenhall Street and Market.

^{page 235 note 2} Archaeologia, lx, 225, fig. 22Google Scholar, and Ixiii, 329, fig. 32.

^{page 235 note 3} Archaeologia, xix, 255, and xxvii, 411Google Scholar.

^{page 235 note 4} Gent. Mag., 1818, ii, 393Google Scholar.

^{page 235 note 5} Ibid., 272. See also 1819, ii, 325, and 1825, ii, 245.

^{page 235 note 1} Illustrations of the Site and Neighbourhood of the New Post Office, p. 2 (attributed to William Herbert, Guildhall Librarian).

^{page 237 note 1} See Mr. Curie's, notes in Newstead Report, pp. 105–106.Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 2} See Tite, W., Antiquities found in the Excavations at the New Royal Exchange.Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 3} Parentalia, p. 286. Mr. Mervyn Macartney, F.S.A., has recently pointed out errors in this description of Wren's work, but they do not affect the fact of the existence of the rubbish-pit (Proceedings, xxvi, 219Google Scholar).

^{page 238 note 1} e.g. Dr. Woodward had many objects from this spot. See also Bagford's Letter to Hearne in Leland's Collectanea, i, p. lxviiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 238 note 2} W. D. Saull, Notitia Britanniae, pp. 13–15.

^{page 238 note 3} Archaeologia, lxiii, 284–5Google Scholar.

^{page 239 note 1} In this and subsequent lists the ‘Samian’ shapes are of course numbered according to the standard classification of Dragendorff. The figure 15* represents the early shallow plate with round moulding (Viertelrundstab) inside. The normal type is better shown in Curie, Newstead, pl. xxxix, 2, or in Ritterling, Hofheim, 1913, pl. xxxi, 4, than by Dragendorff. Many variations occur of the external horizontal flutings in this shape.

^{page 239 note 2} Not clear. Perhaps CAVTERRA.

^{page 240 note 1} Perhaps G. Albinus, of La Graufesenque.

^{page 240 note 2} Perhaps a Pan Rock potter; see Proceedings, xxi, 288.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 3} See Wroxeter Report, 1912, 54.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 4} See Déch. i, 272, and Wroxeter Reports, 1912, 52, and 1913, 29. Also below, pp. 257 and 268.

^{page 240 note 5} See below, p. 241.

^{page 240 note 6} See Proceedings, xxii, 403Google Scholar.

^{page 242 note 1} Mr. Lyell was kind enough to examine material from Pits E 23 and F 20 at St. Martin's-le-Grand. The general appearance of each suggested an accumulation of surface rubbish containing sand, pebbles, lumps of burnt clay, charcoal, &c, and showed evidence of infiltration of iron, giving the soil a more or less reddish appearance. The specimen from Pit E contained several lumps of burnt clay, a piece of coarse pottery, a fragment of oyster shell, several small pieces of oak, elder, and hazel charcoal, and a few seeds of elder, a sedge (Carex), and a grain of wheat, also a few minute bones. Pit F specimen contained a small fragment of Samian ware, a toe-bone of a pig, a tiny fragment of oyster (?) shell, oak charcoal, and a single grain of wheat.

^{page 244 note 1} Of Valens, in a mixed pit at the south end of the site.

^{page 245 note 1} Of course, it is always possible that some of the pits which produced insufficient or no evidence of date may have been dug at a later date than the second century.

^{page 246 note 1} The impressions are faint, and any of the Cs may be a G. Prof. Haverfield reads the first EC- P AC A (Roman Britain in 1914, p. 35), but after very careful examination I believe the strokes that appear to form E to be accidental.

^{page 256 note 1} Of decoration, only part of circumference of a medallion remains.

^{page 256 note 2} Cinnamus. Part of two panels remains. One contained a medallion, but the figure it contained is gone. Small circle in corner. The other contains a figure of Athena (Déch. 77). Name vertically up side of panel, retrograde.

^{page 257 note 1} See similar stamp (and foot-note), pp. 239–40 above.

^{page 257 note 2} Perhaps a badly written stamp of Masclus, but the last letter is clearly an O. at Heiligenberg and Ittenweiler. See Forrer, pl. xvi, 40, and fig. 232.

^{page 268 note 1} See somewhat similar stamps (and notes) pp. 239 and 257 above.

^{page 268 note 2} Numbers of shapes attached to the name of Ritterling refer to his classification of forms at Hofheim (Nass. Ann., xl, pl. xxxiGoogle Scholar). Other numbers are, of course, those of Dragendorff.

^{page 269 note 1} See Mr. Reader's, F. W. summary of such attempts in the Arch. Journal, lx, pp. 213–21Google Scholar.

^{page 269 note 2} By Loftie in his History of London.

^{page 269 note 3} In the V. C. H. London, i, pp. 1–41Google Scholar.

^{page 273 note 1} Jour. Brit. Arch. Assoc., n. s., xx, 307Google Scholar. See also Archaeologia, lxiii, p. 338Google Scholar.