^{page 1 note 1} In printing, the references to illustrations have been altered so as to accord with the figure numbers in the Journal. One or two footnotes have also been added.

^{page 3 note 1} Actually (I find) about 1802–10, when the south-west corner of the area of Corstopitum was cleared and many antiquities found (Ephemeris Epigrapbica, ix, 1142, 1149, etc.)

^{page 4 note 1} It is not, of course, meant to suggest that Corstopitum was a “town” in the same sense as Silchester was. All the evidence that has so far been recovered points to its having been a military station, possibly of a rather unusual type. But all military stations had their civil population.

^{page 7 note 1} Mr. Haverfield, however, points out to me that the building called the “pottery store” seems to have been destroyed about the same period as the hoard was lost, and to have never been rebuilt, nor its débris cleared away: its site lay vacant till the end of the Roman period, The same appears to have been the case with other buildings at Corstopitum. See p. 20.

^{page 10 note 1} It is right to add that Mr. R. H. Forster, from whom my original impression was derived, tells me that his own recollection of the facts is in no way shaken by the above statement of the finders. He says that, although the jug and its contents had been removed before he reached the scene, he saw the shape of its outline in the side of the trench, where it remained clearly visible for some days.

^{page 12 note 1} At the same time Mr. Haverfield tells me that the pottery and coins found in 1911 suggest that this part of the site was not very much occupied after the second century. Moreover, the occurrence of potsherds at Corstopitum sometimes seems to mean that the area in question lay vacant and was used as rubbish ground.

^{page 19 note 1} Others may prefer to think that the hoard had been public money or the property, not of a resident, but (say) of an official or officer temporarily there.