Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T17:56:56.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Excavation of a Long Barrow at Nutbane, Hants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

Faith de Mallet Morgan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The excavation of the long barrow at Nutbane, Penton Grafton, Hants, took place from August to October 1957, covering a period of nine weeks, and was carried out by the writer on behalf of the Andover History Group. The barrow, which was not included in the Ordnance Survey's Map of Neolithic Wessex (1932), had only been discovered at the end of 1955 when the attention of Ordnance Survey Officers was drawn to its presence by Mr North of Penton Mewsey. Describing the barrow to Mr W. Woodhouse of the Ordnance Survey on 10 December 1955, Mr North stated: ‘In this field is a mound which, when ploughed, shows as an oval area of chalk. Black marks can be seen on either side. I dug a pit about 5 feet deep in the mound and the chalk was loose and easy to dig. I found nothing’. Mr Woodhouse reported that it was a typical long barrow of Wessex type. Later an air photograph provided confirmation and indicated the flanking ditches.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 25 , December 1959 , pp. 15 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1959

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 15 note 1 A preliminary note on the excavations was published in Antiq., XXXII, 1958, p. 104Google Scholar.

page 17 note 1 Cf. Atkinson, , Antiq., XXXI, 1957, p. 229Google Scholar.

page 20 note 1 Arch., LXXXV, 1936, p. 37Google Scholar.

page 36 note 1 Atkinson, , Antiq., XXXI, 1957, p. 229Google Scholar.

page 36 note 2 Antiq., XXXII, 1958, p. 106Google Scholar; Wilts. Arch. Mag., LVII, 1958, p. 3Google Scholar.

page 36 note 3 Childe, , Antiq., XXIII, 1949, p. 135Google Scholar.

page 36 note 4 Piggott, , PPS, XXI, 1955. p. 100Google Scholar.

page 37 note 1 Excavations, vol. IV, pl. 249, facing p. 66Google Scholar.

page 37 note 2 Arch. News Letter, Nov.-Dec., 1951, pp. 56–9Google Scholar.

page 37 note 3 Piggott, Neolithic Cultures, pl. IIb, shows this feature.

page 38 note 1 Piggott, , Neolithic Cultures, pp. 58–60Google Scholar.

page 38 note 2 Phillips, , Arch., LXXXV, 1936, pp. 37–106Google Scholar.

page 38 note 3 Chmielewski, , Zagadnie nie Grobocow Kujawskich …, 1952Google Scholar, especially figs. 51, 52. Cf. also the Funnel-Beaker phase of the Dölauer Heide tumulus near Halle for another trapezoid enclosure (Jahresschrift f. Mitteldetitsche Vorg., XLI–XLII, 1958, p. 214Google Scholar and fig. 15).

page 38 note 4 Alt-Thüringen, I, 1953–1954, p. 64Google Scholar.

page 39 note 1 Stieren, , Bericht Röm.-Germ. Komm., XXXIII, 1943–1950, p. 70Google Scholar, Abb 5.

page 39 note 2 Germ., XX, 1936, p. 229Google Scholar.

page 39 note 3 Ant., XXIII, 1949, p. 132Google Scholar; Wiad. Arch., XV, 1938, pp. 1–106Google Scholar.

page 39 note 4 Prahist. Zeit., II, 1910, p. 1Google Scholar.

page 39 note 5 Nachrichtenblatt f. Deutsches Vorzeit, XVI, 1940, p. 6Google Scholar.

page 39 note 6 Glasbergen, , Excavations in the Eight Beatitudes, 1954, Part II, pp. 11–17Google Scholar.

page 39 note 7 Arch., XC, 1944, pp. 57–8Google Scholar.

page 39 note 8 Clark, , PPS, II, 1936, pp. 8–11Google Scholar.

page 39 note 9 Piggott, , Neolithic Cultures, pp. 56–60Google Scholar.

page 39 note 10 Arch., LXXXV, 1936, pp. 87–8Google Scholar.

page 40 note 1 Wheeler, Maiden Castle, fig. 26, 1; fig. 32, 106; fig. 35, 130.

page 40 note 2 Piggott, , PPS., III, 1937Google Scholar, fig. 3, 3.

page 40 note 3 Wheeler, Maiden Castle, fig. 36, 138.

page 41 note 1 Ant. Journ., XXXVI, 1956, pp. 14–30Google Scholar.

page 42 note 1 Obvious hybrids of types A and B, such as Eynsham, Oxon., are not listed. Case, , Oxoniensia, XXI, 1956Google Scholar, fig. 5. no. 21.

page 42 note 2 Loc. cit., in note 1, 12.

page 42 note 3 E.g., Sangmeister, Die Glockenbecherkultur und die Becherkulturen …, 1951Google Scholar, pl. IV, no. 12. Stampfuss, , Die Jungneolithischen Kulturen in Westdeutschland, 1929Google Scholar, pl. VI, nos. 4, 10, 12, 15; pl. VII, 2.

page 42 note 4 Abercromby, , Bronze Age Pottery, 1912, 1Google Scholar, no. 28.

page 42 note 5 Abercromby, no. 21.

page 42 note 6 Abercromby, no. 24.

page 43 note 7 Hawkes, Inventaria Archaeologica, G.B.I.

page 43 note 8 Stampfuss, loc. cit., in note 3, pl. XI, nos. 6, 7, 10, 11 from eastern fringe of the Eifel. Examples quoted in Sangmeister and Stampfuss, note 3, are from south of the Taunus.

page 43 note 9 Primary to Skendleby Long Barrow, Lines.; Phillips, , Arch., LXXXV, 1935, p. 53Google Scholar. Primary to A-beaker, Cassington, Oxon.; loc. cit., in note 1, 16–17. Cf. well-matched Continental types, one partially corded, secondary to Thickthorn Long Barrow, Dorset; Glasbergen, and Waals, Van der, Palaeohistoria, IV, 1955, p. 28Google Scholar; Drew, and Piggott, , PPS, II, 1936, p. 84Google Scholar, figs. 1 and 2.

page 43 note 10 Piggott, , Inventaria Archaeologica, G.B. 26Google Scholar; Butler, and Smith, I. F., 12th Ann. Report Inst. Arch., 1956, p. 33Google Scholar; Smith, M. A., Inventaria Archaeologica, G.B. 14Google Scholar.

page 43 note 11 Coghlan, and Case, , PPS, XXIII, 1957, p. 100Google Scholar.

page 43 note 12 Fox, , Arch. J., XCIX, 1942, p. 1 ff.Google Scholar

page 43 note 13 Loc. cit., in note 9, 28. Cf. also Ermelose Heide, Barrow 1; Modderman, , PSSAIN, V, 1954, p. 22Google Scholar, fig. 4.

page 43 note 14 Gatermann, , Die Becherkulturen in der Rheinprovinz, 1943, pp. 15, 94, 137Google Scholar, fig. 5 ( = Roisdorf or Troisdorf: Stampfuss, loc. cit., in note 3, pl. X, no. 1).

page 43 note 15 Struve, , Die Einzelgrabkultur in Schleswig-Holstein, 1955Google Scholar, pl. 13, no. 6.

page 43 note 16 Loc. cit., in note 15, pl. 21, no. 2.

page 43 note 17 Loc. cit., in note 9, fig. 9.

page 43 note 18 Loc. cit., in note 15, 124, 129, 67–8.

page 43 note 19 The protrusion on English biconical B-beakers is by no means so marked as on the early Dutch Corded-Ware beakers, but approximates more to the feature on later ones. Loc. cit., in note 9, fig. 3. But caution should mention that similarly protruding feet occur in British A-beakers and collared urns.

page 43 note 20 But cf. Castillio, , La Cultura del Vaso Campaniforme (1928) XCVIIIGoogle Scholar (Provence), CXIII, 4 (Sardinia), CXXII, 11 and CXXIII, 6 (N. Italy).

page 44 note 21 Loc. cit., in note is, pl. 24, nos. 1, 3, 4. Modderman, , PSSAIN, VI, 1955, p. 33Google Scholar, fig. 1, no. 2. Paradoxically, the influence of Giant-Beakers appears as plainly as anywhere, in southern England, on the smaller than average B2-beakers. Other possible candidates, as models for Continental biconical beakers, are the angular vases of the later stages of the Walternienberg culture, at some stage of which tubular copper or bronze beads seem to have been a feature. Childe, , Danube, 1929Google Scholar, fig. 80.

page 44 note 22 Warren, and others, PPS, II, 1936, p. 189Google Scholar, fig. 3, no. 1; the reconstruction should conceivably show greater height and a narrower base. A smaller vessel; Briscoe, , Proc. Cambs. AS., XLII, 1949, p. 103Google Scholar, fig. 8 d.

page 44 note 23 NDV, 1941, p. 29 ff. Barbed-wire decoration discussed by Smith, I. F., 11th Ann. Report. Inst. Arch., 1955, p. 29 ff.Google Scholar; Modderman, loc. cit., in note 21, 32 ff.; Glasbergen and Van der Waals, loc. cit., in note 9, p. 42 note 2.

page 44 note 24 Ermelose Heide, Barrow II, Modderman, loc. cit. in note 13, 22, fig. 5. Pot-beaker sherds were secondary, fig. 6.

page 44 note 25 Neo. Cult., 1954, p. 374Google Scholar.

page 44 note 26 E.g., Glasbergen and Van der Waals, loc. cit., in note 9, 35, based on some radiocarbon tests.