Excavations at this site, first uncovered by Sir John Evans over a century ago, have so far been undertaken in two seasons, one in 1966 and the other in 1969. No final report can be published until more work has been done not only on the main building but also on outbuildings that may exist. It is hoped that the following brief architectural description and tentative dating will suffice until a more substantial report is prepared on these and further excavations to be carried out over the next few years.

The Corbridge ‘pottery shop’ forms part of what is now known as the western enclave and was first uncovered during excavations directed by Leonard Woolley in 1907, together with the northern half of the western compound. Through the sixty-seven years since then interpretation of the evidence which he found and recorded has varied considerably, as is shown by the following extracts taken from the writings of Woolley, Forster, Birley and Richmond.

A ROMANO-CELTIC bust was discovered in 1967 by Mr. C. N. Moore, then Assistant Curator of the Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum, set into a wall-niche in Chapel Cottage, Sutton Row, Sutton Mandeville, about ten miles to the west of Salisbury. It was purchased by the museum in 1968. Sor far it has only been summarily published – in JRS lviii (1968), p. 201, pl. 18, fig. 3 (front view, while still in the wall), in the Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum Annual Report 1967–1968, pp. 16, 17, pl. l, c (left profile view, after removal to the museum), and in Salisbury Heritage, 1973, p. 18, fig 32 (same view as the last). But photographs giving several other views — three-quarters to right and left and from the back — were taken, both before and after the bust's removal from the cottage wall, by Mr Moore, who has kindly given me permission to publish here a selection of those that show it as it is now displayed.

New interpretations are suggested for two terms in Docilis' letter found on a wooden tablet from Carlisle and published in Britannia 29 (1998), 34–84, no. 16 (= AE 1998, 839). Lanciarius does not refer to all the horsemen of ala I Gallorum, but only to those equipped with lancea-spears and subarmales are not weapons but felt-padded, rainproof doublets worn under the armour.

This paper assesses the effects which the building of Hadrian's Wall had on the patterns of supply and communication from the continent. Existing systems were strengthened rather than altered, and Hadrian's reign saw the full development of ports and military installations on the North Sea and Channel coasts. Navigation to Britain and sailing conditions on various routes are discussed, comparing their importance in the transport of wine, oil, exotic plants and samian ware and the movement of military personnel. Use of the Rhône–Rhine axis is emphasised for the movement of goods from Central Gaul and the Mediterranean, but other rivers in western and north-western Gaul were of some importance, as the details of samian distribution demonstrate. Finally, non-state organisation of the acquisition and distribution of commodities supplied to the army on Hadrian's Wall is strongly favoured.

I propose that the usual role of the Notitia Dignitatum's ‘Saxon Shore’ forts was, on both sides of the Channel, to control chronic, ‘everyday’ piracy and to support imperial operations. An exception occurred under Carausius and Allectus when the British forts were augmented to face likely Roman invasion. There was never any integrated cross-Channel system against concerted barbarian seaborne attack, Saxon or otherwise. The ‘Saxon Shore’ was a late fourth-century political expedient, confined to Britain and with minor military significance.

This paper presents a new approach to an old problem, the provincial reception of the image of Roman emperors. Applying 3D computer modelling, we captured the portrait features of Hadrian as represented on coinage minted for the British province, produced a 3D model from a coin and compared it with the bronze head of Hadrian found in London. The aim was to test the possibility, previously posited by other scholars, that the London portrait might have been produced by an artisan who used coin portraits of the emperor as his main – if not only – model. More generally, the paper examines the dependencies of coinage and sculpture on shared models and applies new technology to Roman portrait studies.