^{page 60 note 1} See, for instance, Soc. Antiq. Research Reports, nos. vi and vii.

^{page 60 note 2} The plans, sections, etc., have been prepared by the architectural staff of H.M. Office of Works.

^{page 61 note 1} Grooves and piles were noticed by Salzmann under one of the bastions (Sussex Arch. Coll. vol. li, p. 104). The presence of piles in a similar position has also been noticed at Richborough (Soc. Ant. Research Report, vii, pl. x and xi).

^{page 63 note 1} Soc. Ant. Research Report, vii, pl. xlv.

^{page 63 note 2} It is possible that where the beams joined in the thickness of the turret walls, they were notched and continued beyond the point of intersection as-in the main wall of the fort.

^{page 65 note 1} I must express my thanks to Mr. B. H. St. J. O'Neil for assisting me in obtaining the particulars of the coins from various sites, and to Dr. R. E. M. Wheeler for permitting me to consult the proofs of an article on Romano-British Kent in the forthcoming volume of the Victoria County History.

^{page 66 note 1} Sussex Arch. Coll. vol. li, p. 99; vol.lii, p. 88. Smith, Roach, Excavations at Pevensey (London, 1852). P. 34.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 2} V.C.H. Hampshire, vol.i,330.

^{page 66 note 3} Brit. Arch. Assoc. Journ., xxxvi, p. 99. J. Ives, Gariannonum (1803).

^{page 67 note 1} There are vague statements about coins from this site, such as: ‘Nothing before Domitian and mainly lower Empire’ (Ives, op. cit.). ‘All post-Constantine’ (Brit. Arch. Assoc. Journ. XXXVI, 99). ‘A few small coins of the lower Empire’ (Norfolk Arch. v, (1859), p. 160).

^{page 67 note 2} An interesting parallel is furnished by Cardiff, where the latest coins are two of Valentinian I (Antiqs. Journ. ii, 369 f.). It is tempting to connect the cessation of these two coin-series with the disasters of 367 and to suggest that the re-organization of the Province involved the abandonment of these two fortresses.

^{page 67 note 3} Sussex Arch. Coll. li, 112.

^{page 67 note 4} V.C.H. Norfolk, i, 304. I am indebted to Miss Barnard for supplying me with particulars of coins from this site, now in Norwich Museum, and to Mr. Leney for a list of those in the possession of Mr. E. M. Mennell of King's Lynn.

^{page 68 note 1} V.C.H. Norfolk, i, 304, f.

^{page 68 note 2} Soc. Ant. Proc., xi,12.

^{page 68 note 3} Brit. Arch. Assoc. Journ., xiv,271.

^{page 68 note 4} Arch. xli, 445; Arch. Journ. xviii,60.

^{page 68 note 5} Freeman, Regulbium, pp. 60, 65. Batteley, Antiquitates Rutupinae.

^{page 68 note 6} Arch. Journ., lxxxvi, 265.

^{page 69 note 1} Roach Smith, Richhorough, Reculver and Lympne, p.260; and Report on Excavation at Lympne (London, 1852), p. 32.

Prof. Haverfield in a notebook (now in the Haverfield Library, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford) records the following coins from Lympne: 3 Tetricus, 3 Carausius, 2 Allectus, 2 Maximin Daza, 2 Maximian, 3 Constantine I, 1 Crispus, I Constantine II, 4 minims, 3 illegible. These are included in the totals above. Cf. also V.C.H. Kent, ii, p. 53.

^{page 71 note 1} Trans. Devon Assoc. xliv, 703.

^{page 71 note 2} Collingwood, , The Roman Signal Station on Castle Hill, Scarborough (Scarborough Corporation, 1925)Google Scholar, cf. Macdonald, , ‘Die Küstenverteidigung Britanniens gegen das Ende der röm. Herrschaft’ in Fünfundzwanzig Jabre Röm.–germ. Kommission (Leipzig, 1929)Google Scholar and Roman Britain 1914–28 (Brit. Acad. Suppl. Papers, no. vi, 1931), p. 67 f.

^{page 71 note 3} e.g., ORL, no. 43, pl. 3, 1 and 45, pl. 10, 7.