PART II. 
II. Romano-British Wares. 
Widening knowledge of Roman, ceramics has shown that the 
nse of the terms Samian, Castor, Upchurch and Salopian, as class 
names for the wares to which they are usually applied, should be 
abandoned. They have already been discarded as misleading or 
inadequate by the latest investigators in this country, and the} 7 
are unknown to, or regarded as obsolete by Continental archaeo¬ 
logists, whose labours have rendered a more systematic classifica¬ 
tion possible. 
The recent pulications on which the following modified 
classification of the later and coarser descriptions of Romano- 
British pottery is based are the following :— 
(1) . Lceschcke, Haltern, V. —Mitteilungen der Altertums Kommission 
fiir Westfalen , V. (1909), III. Ausgrabungen bei Haltern. Die 
keramischen Funde, by S. Lceschcke. 
(2) . Mitteilungen iibev Romische Funde in HeddernJieiin, IV. ( 1907). 
1. Das romische Graberfeld bei Praunheim, by Prof. Dr. A. Riese. 
4. Die Topfereien vor dem Nordtore der romischen Stadt, by 
Prof. Dr. G. Wolff. 5. Die Fundstiicke aus der romischen 
Topferei vor dem Nordtore, by Director-Assist. R. Welcker. 
(3) . Ritterling, Wiesbaden.—Der Obevgermanisch-rcetische Limes, 
XXXI., No. 31, Weisbaden, by Prof. Dr. J. Ritterling (1909). 
(4) . Orl, XXXII., No. 8, Zugmantel, by Dr. Walther Barthel, 
(1909). 
(5) . Orl, XXXIII., No. 33, Stochstadt, by Dr. Fried. Drexel, 
(1910). 
(6) . Curie, Newstead.—A Roman Frontier Post and its People. 
The Fort of Neivstead in the Parish of Melrose (1911), by James 
Curie, F.S.A. (Scot.), F.S.A. 
They are to be regarded as additional to those already 
mentioned at the beginning of Part I. 
The classification of Roman provincial pottery according to 
individual character—form, ornamentation, material and technique 
