Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:47:45.265Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Stanwick Excavations, 1951. Interim Report

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2011

R. E. M. Wheeler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the parishes of Stanwick St. John and Forcett-with-Carkin, eight miles north of Richmond in the North Riding of Yorkshire, are more than six miles of rampart and ditch, forming a complex of enclosures of a very remarkable kind. Since Leland's day they have been a sufficiently notorious archaeological problem, but their size and remoteness on the one hand, and possibly the counter-attractions of Hadrian's Wall on the other, have combined to deter analytical investigation of them.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 32 , Issue 1-2 , April 1952 , pp. 1 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1952

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 1 note 1 Leland, J., The Itinerary, ed. Smith, L. T. (London, 1909), iv, 27.Google Scholar

page 1 note 2 Arch. Journ. vi(1849), 335Google Scholar; Arch. Tracts, p.19.

page 1 note 3 Wooler, E., The Roman Fort at Piercebridge, County Durham (Frome and London, 1917)Google Scholar; and in Proc. Soc. Ant. of Newcastle on Tyne, 4th ser. (1924), 287 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 1 note 4 V.C.H. York, ii, 61–62;Google ScholarElgee, F., Yorkshire (County Archaeologies Series), pp. 49,Google Scholar 233-4. Contrast with thectual deer-park within Stanwick Park, with its appropriate internal ditch, underlines the fallacy.

page 2 note 1 Museums Journal, li, no. 6 (Sept. 1951), 139.Google Scholar

page 2 note 2 Piggott, Stuart in Proc. Prehistoric Soc. xvi(1950), 17Google Scholar; Fox, Cyril, ‘The Study of Early Celtic Metalwork in Britain’, The Advancement of Science, no. 30 (Brit. Assoc, 1951)Google Scholar.

page 2 note 3 Proc. Roy. Arch. Inst., York volume, 1846, p. 10Google Scholar.

page 2 note 3 Bruce, J. C., A Descriptive Catalogue of Antiquities at Alnwick Castle, p. 88.Google Scholar

page 5 note 1 Antiq. Journ. xxi (1941), 267Google Scholar; Archaeologia, xc (1944), 139Google Scholar.

page 6 note 1 For its course from Swaledale to Teesdale, see Mackuchlin, H. in Arch. Journ. vi (1849), 221 ff.Google Scholar and V.C.H. York, ii, 55Google Scholar.

page 7 note 1 This is a fair general statement since, with the exception of one or possibly two sherds from the top, the Roman pottery from site A forms a substantially homogeneous group threaded throughout by occasional sherds of butt-beaker. The Roman wares are already dominant in the lowest levels, namely10, 7, and 8.

page 7 note 2 The significant site for this inference is Col-Chester: Hawkes, C. F. C. and Hull, M. R., Camu-lodunum (1947), p. 179Google Scholar.

page 7 note 3 Corder, P. and Pryce, T. Davies in Antiq. Journ. xviii (1938), 262 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 8 note 1 Camulodunum (1947), pp. 278–9,Google Scholar types 112, 113, 115, 116, 119.

page 8 note 2 e.g. Richborough, iv, nos. 403–4.

page 8 note 3 Annals xii, 32.

page 8 note 4 Ibid. 36.

page 8 note 5 Ibid.40.

page 9 note 1 Hist, iii, 45.

page 9 note 2 Miller, Stuart in Journ. of Roman Studies, xv(1925), 182–4,Google Scholar and xviii (1928), 98-99.

page 9 note 3 Tacitus, , Agricola, 17.Google Scholar

page 11 note 1 I am indebted to Dr. Gerhard Bersu, Hon. F.S.A., for these two analogies.

page 13 note 1 Proc. Prehist. Soc. xvi (1950), 1 ff.Google Scholar Professor Piggott will very kindly contribute a note on the new sword to the final report, and Dr. Plenderleith will describe the ingenious methods whereby its wood and metal have been conserved.