^{page 215 note 1} Canon Atkinson, in his history of Cleveland Ancient and Modern (Barrow-in-Furness, 1874), vol. i, p. 54, thus alludes to finds on Huntcliff. There were, he says, “foundations of a building and outside it what has no doubt been a rubbish heap or midden. In it from time to time have been found pieces of Roman pottery, an iron axe, parts of one or it may be of two iron bows of a vessel, and a bronze vessel, a good deal decayed, but which has had an ornamental bowl with the loops on the sides of the vessel ornamented with heads—a very fair piece of Roman work. Several coins, principally of the time of Valentinian, and innumerable animal bones have been met with.” This description is from the pen of Canon Greenwell who either visited or actually conducted the work. Some of the objects then found are now in Mr. Hornsby's possession, namely, (1) part of around iron object, possibly the rim or binding of a bucket; (2) one end of the bronze handle of a bucket, turned up to make a hook; (3) four pieces of thin bronze, use unknown; (4) a piece of iron, 6 oz. in weight, perhaps from an axehead; (5) a piece of iron, use unknown. The coins mentioned by Canon Atkinson passed to a Mr. Pierson, long since dead, and all trace of them has been lost: the potsherds have also perished and the bones were carted out at the time with the soil of the site.

^{page 215 note 1} The excavations were carried out during 1911–1912 by the present writers. They desire to tender their best thanks to Mr. John Rigg for leave to excavate, to the Rev. R. L. B. Oliver, Mr. Thos. Ingledew, and Mr. C. M. Hornsby for much kind help, to Mr. E. Wooler, F.S.A. for very useful advice, to Mr. F. G. Simpson, of Boston Spa, for valuable counsel and aid, and to the writers of sections II-v for their contributions to the report, which are in each case based on personal examination of the objects. Professor Haverfield has revised the manuscript of the report.

^{page 226 note 1} Sussex Arch. Collections, li, 99, lii, 83, Arch. Journ. lxvi, 125. Much of the pottery is now in the museums of Brighton and Lewes, but it has not been fully illustrated in any publication. The pieces found in the earlier excavations of Mr. Roach Smith have also escaped publication.

^{page 227 note 1} Compare, perhaps, the urns in which the Blackmore (Hants.) hoards were found, belonging to the very end of the third century.

^{page 228 note 1} The ware is occasionally called “vesicular,” but that term was first invented, I believe, under the erroneous belief that its small holes were remains of air-bubbles or blisters which had formed on the surface during baking. And, apart from this error, it must be noted that “vesica” and “vesicular” have already quite different technical senses in art, in geology, and in medicine. A technical term which is born of error and likely to cause error is worse than no technical term at all

^{page 228 note 2} Somewhat the same proportion of black and reddish-brown pieces has been noticed at Corbridge also.

^{page 228 note 1} Corbridge Report for 1911, Arch. Ael. 1912, p. 169, foll, (compare, e.g. fig. 67 there with no. 23 on our fig. 40); F. G. Simpson, Report on the Gilsland (or Poltrossburn) Milecastle, , Cumberland and Westmorl. Archaeol. Trans., xi, 1911, p. 453Google Scholar, and plate v, nos. 6–17.

^{page 230 note 1} Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scotland, xiv, 81.

^{page 230 note 2} See Frl. Prof. Mestorf, Moorleichen, in 42 Bericht des Museums vaterländischer Alterthümer bei der Universität Kiel (Kiel, 1900)Google Scholar, and Nachtrag zu den Moorleichen, in 44 Bericht (1907). For discussions regarding the technique of these early specimens of cloth see A. Götze, Brettchenweberei im Altertum (Zeitschr für Ethnologie, 1908, pp. 481, ff.) and R. Stettiner, Brettchenweberei in den Moorfunden von Damendorf, Daetgen und Torsberg (Mitteilungen des anthropologischen Vereins in Schleswig-Holstein, 1911, pp. 26, ff.).