This section provides a complete list of the locations defined as part of our survey work and discussed in the main text (Table AII.1). These locations can be loosely treated as ‘sites’ in the traditional sense of the term (i.e., a relatively spatially discrete cluster of artefacts representing the material remains of some past activity) with three important provisos. (1) Most locations were defined for the purposes of comparing different local assemblages, and via a spatial analytical model (see Appendix I for details) rather than by identification in the field (although we certainly did use informal assessments of such clusters in the field). At the risk of seeming to have left an interpretative task half-finished, we suggest that the exact way in which such locations should be compared with sites from other surveys is very much something upon which readers of this book should decide themselves based on their own analytical priorities. (2) The ‘Nominal Area’ of locations should not be used as a proxy for site extent and size (e.g., as an estimate of the exact edges and area of a Late Roman village) without careful thought. For example, in later periods, the nominal estimate often includes material in halo around settlements that is most likely attributable to rubbish disposal, garden plots and agricultural installations.