Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T22:23:27.572Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

II.—Excavation of Barrows on Crichel and Launceston Downs, Dorset

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2011

Get access

Extract

The excavations to be described were undertaken at the request of H.M. Office of Works in the summer of 1938, and were in the nature of ‘rescue work’, for the area on which the barrows lay had been acquired by a government department and it was felt desirable that some at least of the barrows should be excavated in advance of operations in order to avoid possible damage. With regard to the choice of sites, as will be seen from the site plan (fig. 1), there are altogether some 34 barrows in the area acquired by the Ministry, but it was found possible to limit the actual excavation to eighteen, mainly of small size and elevation, and many extremely small, and mostly within the central area of the ground. The rejection of the large barrows was largely governed by the time factor since the excavation of a large barrow would be of necessity a longer task than that of a small one, and in the limited time allowed we were faced with the alternative of excavating two or three large barrows or a larger number of relatively small mounds.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1944

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 50 note 1 C. M. Piggott, ‘A Middle Bronze Age Barrow and Deverel-Rimbury Urnfield at Latch Farm near Christchurch, Hants’, Proc. Prehist. Soc, iv, 169–87. Where possible comparisons are drawn from the Late Bronze Age vessels from this site, as it offers a large Wessex cemetery accessibly published.

page 51 note 1 Sussex Arch. Colls., lxxvii (1936), 72–3.Google Scholar

page 51 note 2 Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 49.

page 51 note 3 Proc. Prehist. Soc, ii (1936), 7796.Google Scholar

page 51 note 4 Survey of the Prehistory of the Farnham District (Surrey Arch. Soc, 1939), 133–49.

page 51 note 5 Antiquity, xi (1937), 441–5.Google Scholar

page 51 note 6 Ibid., x (1936), 422.

page 52 note 1 The type appears in the causewayed camps at e.g. Abingdon, (Antiq. Journ. vii (1927), 446;Google Scholar fig. 5b) and Whitehawk, (Sussex Arch. Coll., lxxi (1930), pl. xivGoogle Scholar, fig. 13), though, curiously enough, not at Hembury Fort.

page 52 note 2 At Cassington (12 graves) (Antiq. Journ., xiv (1934), 268–75)Google Scholar and Eynsham (18 graves) (Oxoniensia, iii (1938), 730).Google Scholar

page 52 note 3 Antiq. Journ., xx (1940), 3951.Google Scholar

page 54 note 1 Proc. Prehist. Soc, v (1940).Google Scholar

page 54 note 2 Arch. Jonrn., lxxxviii (1931), 193.Google Scholar

page 54 note 3 Arch. Camb., lxxxi (1926), 48.Google Scholar

page 55 note 1 Pond Cairn, Archaeologia, lxxxvii, 142.

page 55 note 2 Ancient Wilts., i. 208; 236. Cf. also Thurnam in Archaeologia, xliii, 314, for further examples of exceptionally deep graves.

page 55 note 3 Wilts. Arch. Mag., xlvii, 74.

page 58 note 1 We owe this suggestion to Sir Leonard Woolley, who was present during the excavation of this barrow.

page 58 note 2 Mortimer, Forty Years, 182.

page 58 note 3 van Giffen, Die Bauart der Einzelgräber, Taf. 32.

page 58 note 4 Ibid., Taf. 37.

page 58 note 5 Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 65; Archaeologia, lxxxv, 46.

page 58 note 6 Oxoniensia, iv, 11 ff.

page 59 note 1 Excavations in Cranborne Chase, ii, 190 ff. (nos. 13 and 15).

page 60 note 1 Cf. Proc. Prehist. Soc, iv (1938), 54.Google Scholar

page 60 note 2 Ibid., 107 ff.

page 60 note 3 Archaeologia, lxxxvii, 129 ff.; cup on pl. xlvii, 3.

page 60 note 4 Ancient Wilts., 1, 75.

page 61 note 1 Proc. Prehist. Soc., vi (1940).Google Scholar

page 61 note 2 Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, pl. 238.

page 64 note 1 Proc. Prehist. Soc, iv, 1 (1938), 180, fig. 7.Google Scholar