^{page 2 note 1} I must make grateful acknowledgement of the assistance rendered by many friends during the excavation: to Mr. R. J. A. Bunnett for shouldering the initial arrangements; to Mr. E. Harbron for undertaking much of the photographic work; to Mr. C. E. Hartley for similar services, and together with Mrs. Hartley, for other help; and to Miss Molly Walker, Miss K. Rob, and Mr. D. Gilyard-Beer for assistance in digging. I must also express my thanks to Mr. D. B. Harden for reading this paper in manuscript, and for his valued comments and suggestions.

^{page 2 note 2} For the name Quernhow, see Smith, A. H., The Place-names of the North Riding of Yorkshire (English Place-name Society, v), 224.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 3} P.P.S. ii. 51, fig. 27.

^{page 2 note 4} Ibid. 49.

^{page 2 note 5} Y.A.J. i, 116–25.

^{page 4 note 1} This barrow, known as Stapley Hill, was excavated in 1903 and an account published in H. B. M'Call, Story of the Family of Wandesforde. The finds are preserved in Kirklington village school, where I was permitted to inspect and draw them.

^{page 11 note 1} Unless, of course, the original intention was to excavate a ring-ditch, a project abandoned in favour of the stone walling found.

^{page 13 note 1} It is, of course, possible that the peristalith, as found, was incomplete, for stones could easily have been removed before concealment of the remainder beneath the secondary mound (below, p. 18); if so, since the stones were merely bedded on the surface, no indication of their former presence would be recoverable.

^{page 17 note 1} e.g. at Cairn, Pond, Arch, lxxxvii, 157.Google Scholar Fox, indeed, asks: ‘Specially burnt for the occasion?’

^{page 21 note 1} Raistrick, , ‘Bronze Age Settlement of the North, of England’, Arch. Ael., Series 4, viii, with distribution maps.Google Scholar

^{page 21 note 2} At North Deighton, 13 miles south of Ripon, for instance, the material of a Food-Vessel barrow contained much Neolithic B and Beaker pottery which must certainly be derived from an adjacent occupation site yet to be located. P.P.S. v, 251.

^{page 21 note 3} Elgee (Archaeology of Yorkshire, 78) relates the Henge monuments to the adjacent barrows of mid-Bronze Age Urn-folk. Piggott's, excavations at Cairnpapple Hill, West Lothian, however, indicating the dismantling of a Henge monument to accommodate a cairn of Food-Vessel date, clearly demonstrates a break in religious tradition, P.S.A.S. lxxxii, 115.Google Scholar

^{page 21 note 4} Or Middle Bronze Period A, as defined in the Handbook of the Prehistoric Archaeology of Britain (Oxford, 1932).Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 1} Similar excavations are frequently noted by Mortimer and Green well in the Wold barrows (British Barrows, 9). They range from one to six in number in the same barrow, and although sited anywhere relative to the centre show a marked preference for the south-east quadrant. They vary from 0·5 to 3·0 ft. in depth, and from 1·0 to 6·0 ft. across, although occasionally exceeding these dimensions. The filling of these pits is by no means constant; although potsherds are quite frequently included (in occupation soil?), I can quote only one instance of the presence of the entire vessel, a food-vessel in Mortimer's barrow 103. Mortimer en- counteredthese pits in 26 barrows; in 4 instances with primary burial(s) with Beaker, in 6 cases with Food-Vessel, and once with both.

^{page 23 note 2} This feature is unexplained. A square timber construction has been noted to support the funeral pyre in Wessex (P.P.S. vii, 92), and Van Giffen has interpreted quadrangular settings of post-holes in certain Dutch barrows as shrines (examples in Die Bauart der Einzelgräber, cf. Nieuwedrentsche Volksalmanak, 1939, 16, Afb. 19, ibid. 1941, 12, Afb. 8; but see Piggott, , Arch. Journ. xcvi, 219)Google Scholar.

^{page 22 note 3} Interrupted stone circles or ditches are, of course, not confined to Yorkshire, but Greenwell describes two concealed examples on the Wolds in which the opening faces east or south-east (British Barrows, 145, 166). Fox, , however, notes a connexion between the bearing of the opening and the location of adjacent occupation sites (Arch. Journ. xcix, 21–2)Google Scholar; on this assumption, a search was made over suitable terrain east of the Quernhow barrow, but without success. The structure, moreover, contained insufficient material to warrant the conclusion that occupation debris had been incorporated in its construction.

^{page 22 note 4} Is it possible to regard this concealment, before re-use of the barrow, as a deliberate measure to destroy whatever significance the peristalith may have possessed ?

^{page 23 note 1} Elgee, , Arch. Yorks, 63Google Scholar; cf. Childe, , Prehist. Communities, 129.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 2} Childe, op. cit. 128.

^{page 23 note 3} Vide Kitson-Clark, Mary, Arch. Journ. xciv, 49, n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 4} Ten Years' Diggings, 207.

^{page 23 note 5} Elgee, Early Man in N.E. Torks., 71.

^{page 23 note 6} e.g. Westmorland, CW. 2, iv, 71, Greenwell, op. cit. clxxxiii; Northumberland, ibid, clxxxvii, cc; in Scotland, to quote a recently excavated example, Cairnpapple Hill, Piggott, op. cit.

^{page 24 note 1} The Food-Vessel shows Beaker influence, P.P.S. iv, 319.

^{page 24 note 2} Y.A.J. xxiv, 263–5. The lack of other in- stances in which this architectural feature is found associated with Food-Vessel burials seems due rather to ill-documented early excavations than to any real absence of the feature. A curb accompanying burials with Urns is frequent enough.