^{page 96 note 3} The Winchester Schools Archaeological Committee completed its work at Lankhills with a last season in 1972, the results of which are also ineluded in this final interim report.

^{page 98 note 1} Antiq. Journ. 1 (1970), 279–81Google Scholar.

^{page 98 note 2} Observation, recording, and the excavation of a i-m.-wide section near the angle of the ditch were undertaken by the Winchester City Rescue Archaeologist. The results are shown here in fig. 1, an earlier version of which appeared in [Wessex] Archaeological Review, 6 (1971), 30, fig. 2Google Scholar.

^{page 98 note 3} Antiq. Journ. xlviii (1968), 253–5Google Scholar.

^{page 99 note 1} I am most grateful to Mr. G. B. Dannell, F.S.A., for reporting as in previous years on the samian found at Winchester in 1971.

^{page 99 note 2} Antiq. Journ. 1 (1970), 282Google Scholar.

^{page 99 note 3} See below, pp. 111–12.

^{page 99 note 4} Peacock, D. P. S., ‘Roman amphorae in pre-Roman Britain’, in Jesson, Margaret and Hill, David (ed.), The Iron Age andits Hill-Forts (Southampton, 1971), 161–88, esp. p. 181 which refers to a fragment from the 1970 Assize Courts sectionGoogle Scholar.

^{page 100 note 1} Bushe-Fox, J. P., Excavations at Hengistbury Head, Hampshire, in 1911–12 (Soc. of Antiquaries, Research Committee Report iii, London, 1915), pp. 34–8, pls. XVII–XVIIIGoogle Scholar; cf. esp. nos. 28–9.

^{page 100 note 2} Hughes, Michael, ‘Excavations at Brownwich Farm, Titchfield, 1971’ Rescue Archaeology in Hampshire, i (1973), 5–28Google Scholar, describes a possible salt-producing site on the shore of the Solent, of the same date as the Winchester enclosure and with a closely similar pottery assemblage; for ‘briquetage’, see ibid. 17–20.

^{page 100 note 3} Antiq. Journ. xlviii (1968), 258–9Google Scholar; xlix 296–302; 1 (1970), 278–92.

^{page 101 note 1} Ibid. 1 (1970), 281–5.

^{page 101 note 2} A cross-section of the wall is preserved in a specially constructed cupboard in the furnace room: Ward-Evans, Sidney, Winchester Castle. Excavations for Extension of County Offices, 1930-1931 (Portsmouth, n.d. [1931])Google Scholar.

^{page 101 note 3} Antiq. Journ. l (1970), 281–5Google Scholar.

^{page 101 note 4} Ibid. 282, for the erosion of the earth banks, For pink-plaster rendering of the external walls of the west gate at Silchester, see Archaeologia, lii (1890), 756Google Scholar.

^{page 101 note 5} Antiq. Journ. xlv (1965), 236, pl. LXIXGoogle Scholar.

^{page 103 note 1} Antiq. Journ. l (1970), 285–9Google Scholar.

^{page 103 note 2} Martin Biddle and David Hill, ‘Late Saxon planned towns’, ibid. li (1971), 70–8.

^{page 103 note 3} Biddle, Martin, ‘Winchester: the development of an early capital’, op. cit. (above, p. 96, n. 1), 248–51Google Scholar.

^{page 103 note 4} Switsur, V. R., ‘The radiocarbon calendar recalibrated’, Antiquity, xlvii (1973), 131–7Google Scholar. Recalibration by the , Ralph–Michael–Han calculations (MASCA Newsletter, 9. 1 (08, 1973), 1–19)Google Scholar would suggest a date of A.D. 920±70. See Radiocarbon, 16. 2 (1974), 184Google Scholar.

^{page 103 note 5} The importance of the intramural street was not fully recognized in 1970, when the article cited in n. 2 above was written, (op. cit. 76)Google Scholar; it was taken into full account in 1972 in the article cited in n. 3 above, p. 250.

^{page 104 note 1} Antiq. Journ. l (1970), 288, pls. XLIa, XLIIaGoogle Scholar.

^{page 104 note 2} Throughout the following discussion reference should be made to the over-all plan published in the 1969 interim report (ibid, lii (1972), fig. 2) which also incorporates the 1970 evidence. It has not been thought worthwhile to republish this plan when much of the relevant new evidence is available on fig. 4 of the present report.

^{page 104 note 3} Ibid. 289–90.

^{page 105 note 1} Wilkins, D., Concilia, i (1737), 325, from Canterbury Cathedral Archives, MS. Ch. Ant. A 1Google Scholar.

^{page 105 note 2} For this date see Barlow, F. in Antiq. Journ. xliv (1964), 217–19Google Scholar.

^{page 106 note 1} Antiq. Journ. xlix (1969), 301–2, fig. 1Google Scholar; l (1970), 291, fig. 2.

^{page 106 note 2} Colvin, H. M. (ed.), The History of the King's Works (1963), ii, 857, 861–2Google Scholar.

^{page 106 note 3} Antiq. Journ. xlix (1969), 299, fig. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 106 note 4} Ibid. l (1970), 290.

^{page 106 note 5} Ibid. 289–90, fig. 2, pls. XLIb, XLIIb.

^{page 109 note 1} Asimilar feature was found as an addition to the seventh-century Old Minster: Antiq. Journ. l (1970), 319, fig. 13Google Scholar.

^{page 110 note 1} Antiq. Journ. xlv (1965), 237–8Google Scholar.

^{page 110 note 2} The interpretations put forward in this report differ substantially from those outlined in Britannia, iii (1972), 348–9Google Scholar, since it has been possible in the interval to phase the site records fully in preparation for the final publication.

^{page 111 note 1} Antiq. Journ. l (1970), 281–5Google Scholar.

^{page 111 note 2} Ibid. xlv (1965), 235–8.

^{page 111 note 3} Imp Nero Caesar Aug P Max TrP PP / Victory with buckler SPQR. Mint of Lyon. I am grateful to Mr. Richard Reece for his identification of all coins from the 1971 season.

^{page 111 note 4} Antiq. Journ. l (1970), 284, revised above, p. 99Google Scholar.

^{page 111 note 5} Proc. Hants. Field Club, xxii. 2 (1962), 62–6Google Scholar.

^{page 112 note 1} Proc. Hants. Field Club, xxii. 2 (1962), 66–70Google Scholar.

^{page 112 note 2} Ibid. 71, 73.

^{page 113 note 1} Antiq. Journ. l (1970), 284Google Scholar.

^{page 113 note 2} Archaeologia, lii (1890), 754–8 (west gate)Google Scholar; ibid. lxi (1909), 474–6, pl. LXXXIV (east and west gates). For the overlapping of the wall returns against the north and south gates, see ibid. lii (1890), 750–4, pl. xxxi. The structural sequence of the Silchester walls and gates has been briefly discussed by Wacher, J. S., ‘Earthwork defences of the second century’, in Wacher, J. S. (ed.), The Civitas Capitals of Roman Britain (Leicester, 1966), pp. 60–2Google Scholar. See also Boon, G. C., Roman Silchester (London, 1957), pp. 86–8Google Scholar.

^{page 113 note 3} Observation and record by the Winchester City Rescue Archaeologist.

^{page 115 note 1} Probably derived from the Tertiary deposits sandstone with ferruginous cement: cf. Archaeologia, xcii (1947), 143Google Scholar.

^{page 116 note 1} Corder, Philip, ‘The Reorganisation of the Defences of Romano-British Towns in the Fourth Century’, Arch. Journ. cxii (1955), 20–42Google Scholar.

^{page 116 note 2} Two towers on the western defences north of West Gate were of medieval date and no trace of earlier bastions was observed in this area (Antiq. Journ. xlv (1965), 238)Google Scholar. It thus seems unlikely that the entire circuit of the walls was strengthened by the addition of bastions in the fourth century.

^{page 118 note 1} On the Switsur calculations, see above, p. 103, n. 4. Recalibration by the Ralph–Michael–Han calculations (as above, p. 103, n. 4) would suggest dates of A.D. 700–30±70 and A.D. 670±190, respectively. See Radiocarbon, 16. 2 (1974), 184Google Scholar.

^{page 118 note 2} Arch. Journ. cxix (1962), 151–2, fig. 5, Road IGoogle Scholar.

^{page 119 note 1} See now Frank Barlow, Martin Biddle, Olof von Feilitzen, and Keene, D. J., Winchester in the early Middle Ages: an edition and discussion of the Winton Domesday (Winchester Studies 1, ed. Biddle, M., Oxford, 1975), p. 275Google Scholar.

^{page 119 note 2} Hampshire Chronicle, 19.i.1884, 26.i.1884, 16.viii.1884Google Scholar; Southampton Observer and Winchester News, 26.i.1884Google Scholar; Hampshire Advertiser, 23.i.1884, 26.i.1884Google Scholar.

^{page 119 note 3} Meaney, A. L. and Hawkes, S. C., Two Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries at Winnall (Soc. for Med. Archaeology, monograph 4, 1970), pp. 4–6Google Scholar.

^{page 119 note 4} Antiq. Journ. lii (1972), 95–7, fig. 1 (Features 2 and 6)Google Scholar; see also below, p. 124 and fig. 9, Graves 400 and 408, and cf. pl. xxxa.

^{page 120 note 1} Isolated settlements, apparently distinct from the town or its suburbs, have been noted at several points relatively close to the walls in the Roman as well as in later periods. There was an early Roman settlement of this kind, including a cemetery, to the south of Easton Lane, while medieval Winnall was itself a village distinct from the city.

^{page 120 note 2} Under the direction of Mr. Giles Clarke, assisted by Miss Ros Bignell, to both of whom I am grateful for allowing me to draw on the records of their work, now deposited with the Winchester Research Unit.

^{page 121 note 1} See above, op. cit. on p. 119, n. 1, pp. 272–7Google Scholar.

^{page 121 note 2} The excavation was sponsored by the Winchester Schools Archaeological Committee, formed in 1971 under the chairmanship of Mr. Richard Bass. Permission to dig was given by the Hampshire County Council, owners of the site. The headmaster, Mr. D. V. Teale, and the staff of Lankhills School encouraged the excavation, and made available many of their facilities. Financial support was given by Winchester College and other schools in Winchester, by the Hampshire County Council, the British Academy, Winchester Corporation, the Society of Antiquaries, the Administrators of the Haverfield Bequest, and two anonymous donors. Winchester Corporation and the Winchester Excavations Committee lent equipment. The finds were conserved by Suzanne Keene and drawn by Nick Griffiths, both of the Winchester Research Unit, whose staff have given much help and advice. The encouragement, suggestions, and comments of Martin Biddle contributed greatly to the success of the Lankhills project. Almost all the work on the site was done at weekends and during school holidays by volunteers attending school in Winchester. Supervisors were Ros Bignell, David Critchley, Simon Esmonde-Cleary, and Susanne Hughes. Jock Macdonald, assistant master at Winchester College, was deputy director, and was also responsible for most of the administrative work. His contribution has been essential throughout the excavation.

^{page 122 note 1} Antiq. Journ. xlviii (1968), 257–8Google Scholar; xlix (1969), 302–3; 1 (1970), 292–8; lii (1972), 94–8.

^{page 122 note 2} Ibid. lii (1972), 95.

^{page 122 note 3} Ibid. 1 (1970), 295–8. fig. 3 (plans of Graves 81 and 106); lii (1972), 97–8.

^{page 122 note 4} Ibid. xlviii (1968), 258.

^{page 122 note 5} Ibid. xlix (1969), 302.

^{page 122 note 6} Dr. Richard Reece has kindly examined all the coins.

^{page 123 note 1} Most of the bracelets at Lankhills were either of bone with bronze clasps, or of bronze. A few were ivory, iron, shale, or jet. Little significance seems to attach to the differing materials, which will not normally be specified here.

^{page 123 note 2} Antiq. Journ. l (1970), 295, figs. 3 and 4Google Scholar.

^{page 123 note 3} Med. Arch. v (1961), 50–7, figs. 17 and 18Google Scholar.

^{page 123 note 4} Grave 265: Antiq. Journ. lii (1972), 97Google Scholar.

^{page 124 note 1} Antiq. Journ. xlix (1969), 302Google Scholar.

^{page 125 note 1} Med. Arch. v (1961), 59–60, fig. 20Google Scholar.

^{page 125 note 2} Kirk, J. R. and Leeds, E. T., ‘Three early Saxon graves from Dorchester, Oxon’, Oxon. xvii-xviii (1954), 63–76Google Scholar.