Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 May 2014
The barrow whose excavation is described below was situated about 770 feet above Ordnance Datum a hundred yards south of the Hardy Monument on Black Down Hill, Portesham, on the edge of a large gravel pit. In the winning of gravel during the war the face of the pit had been worked round the barrow on both sides destroying the southern half of the ditch and part of the south side of the mound. As the mound was slowly falling into the gravel pit, it was decided by the Ministry of Works to excavate the barrow before further deterioration took place. The first-mentioned author undertook the supervision of this work for the Ministry in April and May, 1955, with a further fortnight in October of the same year, with the kind permission of the owner, Mrs H. Tuke.
page 124 note 1 Arkell, W. J., ‘The Geology of the Country around Weymouth, Swanage, Corfe and Lulworth, Mem. Geol. Survey, 1947, pp. 230–3Google Scholar.
page 125 note 1 PPSEA, VII, pt. I, 204–5Google Scholar.
page 127 note 1 Gray, St. George and Prideaux, , ‘Barrow Digging at Martinstown, nr. Dorchester, 1903’, Proc. Dor. NHAFC, XXVI, 1905, 6–40Google Scholar.
page 127 note 2 1866, e.g. Tumuli Nos. 28 and 38.
page 127 note 3 PPS, IX, 1943, 1–28Google Scholar.
page 128 note 1 e.g. ‘Winterbourne Steepleton Pond Barrow’, Arch. J., CVIII, 16Google Scholar, fig. 4, 1.
page 128 note 2 Ibid, fig. 4, 10 (bevelled); ‘Winterbourne Came’, PPS, IV, 68Google Scholar, fig. 7 rt. (plain).
page 128 note 3 Ibid, fig. 4, 1; ‘Cataclew Bay, Harlyn,’ Arch. J., CI, 39Google Scholar, fig. 9, E. 12.
page 128 note 4 e.g. ‘Bishop's Waltham’, PPS, XXIIIGoogle Scholar.
page 128 note 5 PBUSS, 1931, pl. IV, 21.
page 128 note 6 PBUSS, VI, 111–73, pl. XVII, A.
page 128 note 7 Arch. J., CI, 42Google Scholar, F10.
page 128 note 8 Ibid, CI, 43, fig. 11, F13, F20.
page 128 note 9 Abercromby, vol. II, no. 356, pl. LXXXIV, from near Old Sarum; WAM, XLVIII, 177Google Scholar, from the Winterslow Bell-barrow (this urn is similar to the example under consideration. Its Cornish affinities have been noted. Ibid.) Note also Excavations at Hengistbury Head, 18, pl. IV.
page 128 note 10 Abercromby, vol. I, no. 361.
page 128 note 11 Ibid, no. 362; Warne, 28–30.
page 128 note 12 Kendrick, and Hawkes, , Archaeology of England and Wales, 1914–1931, 139Google Scholar, fig. 58, 2.
page 130 note 1 PPS, IV, 174Google Scholar, fig. 4, 53.
page 130 note 2 WAM, XLIII, 399Google Scholar.
page 130 note 3 WAM, X, 89Google Scholar.
page 130 note 4 References. For those not familiar with the terms or techniques used here, the following papers may prove helpful:
1. Cornwall, I. W. (1953). ‘Soil Science and Archaeology’, PPS, XIX, 129–47Google Scholar.
2. Dimbleby, G. W. (1955). ‘The Ecological Study of Buried Soils’, Advancement of Science, XII, no. 45, 11–16Google Scholar.
3. Dimbleby, G. W. (1957). ‘Pollen Analysis of Terrestrial Soils’, New Phytol., LVI, 12–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 131 note 1 Owing to pressure of space the complete pollen analyses are not given here; they are, however, available for reference at the Dept. of Forestry, Oxford University.
page 132 note 1 I am much indebted to Dr H. Godwin for his help and advice on this point. He says that ‘it seems extremely probable that the grains are those of Hedera despite their high frequency’.
