Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:06:14.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Early Iron Age ‘beach-head’ at Lulworth, Dorset

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2011

Mortimer Wheeler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the preparation of its Dorset inventory the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) has drawn new attention to a remarkable earthwork which has long been known to exist on Bindon Hill, adjoining Lulworth Cove, Dorset. The significant topographical features are as follows. For many miles of Dorset coast the cove is the only natural harbour where in all weathers small craft may lie up with safety. In terms of human time, it must long have approximated to its present shape, the product of a fairly simple geological process. The successive strata hereabouts (from bottom to top) are Purbeck limestone, Wealden clay, and chalk; but they are all here uptilted towards the south through nearly 90 degrees so that in effect they lie side by side with the limestone as an outermost barrier against the sea. In ages past a chalk-stream wore a gap through the limestone down to sea-level, admitting the sea to the Wealden clay, which it then proceeded to scoop into a basin until stopped by the more solid chalk beyond. The tiny descendant of this incisive stream still flows unnoticed beside the road down to the harbour.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 33 , Issue 1-2 , April 1953 , pp. 1 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1953

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 2 note 1 Calendar Charter Rolls, ii(A.D. 1257–1300), 216.Google Scholar I am greatly indebted to Lt.-Col. C. D. Drew for this reference.

page 2 note 2 Recollections, ii (1826), 191–2.Google Scholar

page 2 note 3 Deverel Barrow (1826), pp. 15 and 35.Google Scholar

page 2 note 4 Ancient Dorset (1872), pp. 39–42 and pl. 1,Google Scholar fig. 2.

page 2 note 5 Proc. Dorset Field Club, iv (1880), 53 ff.Google Scholar; ibid. iii (1879), 74 ff. Kerslake proposes the (unacceptable) identification of Bindon with the Beandun of the A.S. Chronicle, A.D. 614.

page 3 note 1 A small detached mound and pond-like hollow i n the gap may indicate an intention to join the two works, but this is not certain. The hill-side here-abouts is very steep and slippery, and forms a natural defence.

page 4 note 1 Curwen, E. Cecil in Antiq. Journ. xiii (1933), 162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 4 note 2 Wheeler, , Maiden Castle, Dorset (1943), p. 32, etc.Google Scholar

page 7 note 1 Ancient Dorset, p. 41.

page 7 note 2 This modern field-boundary appears to have followed the crest of the cross-bank, whence it descended the northern slopes of thehill obliquely towards the north-east.

page 7 note 3 Piggott, S. in Antiquity, v (1931), 478 ff.Google Scholar

page 7 note 4 Whether this difference is due to a variant phase of fortification or merely to the fact that the cross-dike was not aided by contour, and had therefore to be proportionately stronger, cannot be determined.

page 7 note 5 Wheeler, , Maiden Castle, Dorset, pl. IX.Google Scholar

page 7 note 6 Hencken, Thalassa in Arch. Journ. xcv (1938), 26.Google Scholar

page 9 note 1 It is not possible to accept, on the present evidence, a straightforward devolutionary sequence for the shouldered situla on the assumption that the shoulder diminished steadily in emphasis as time went by. In some regions blunt shoulders may be relatively early, and in others angular shoulders relatively late. My Maiden Castle, Dorset, p. 187.

page 9 note 2 History of Scarborough, ed. Rowntree, A. (London, 1931), pp. 26 ff.Google Scholar

page 9 note 3 Leicestershire Arch. Soc. Trans. xxvi (1950), 61 ff.Google Scholar

page 9 note 4 e.g. in Dorset itself at Marnhull: , Audrey-Williams in Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. Soc. lxxii (1950), 41, no. 51Google Scholar.

page 9 note 5 Hawkes, C. F. C. in Arch. Journ. c (1943), 219,Google Scholar and Piggott, Stuart, British Prehistory (Oxford, 1949), p. 152Google Scholar.

page 10 note 1 Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. and Arch. Soc. lxx (1949), 38 ff.Google Scholar Cf. Davies, Henrietta in Arch. Journ. xcii (1936), 200 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 12 note 1 Antiquity, xiii (1939), 78–79.Google Scholar

page 13 note 1 Sussex Arch. Colls. lxxx (1939), 241, 277.Google Scholar