Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:32:50.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An Iron Age A site on the Chilterns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2011

Extract

In 1946 a visit to the barrow, which lies on the edge of the western scarp of Chinnor Common, and a cursory examination of the adjoining area, cultivated during the war, resulted in finds of pottery and other objects indicating Iron Age occupation. The site lies on the saddleback of a Chiltern headland, at a height of about 800 ft. O.D. Two hollow ways traverse the western scarp, giving access to the area from the Upper Icknield Way, which contours the foot of the hill, then drops to cross the valley, passing some 600 yards to the north of the Iron Age site of Lodge Hill, Bledlow, and rising again continues northwards under Pulpit Hill camp and the Ellesborough Iron Age pits below Coombe Hill. The outlook across the Oxford plain to the west is extensive, embracing the hill-fort of Sinodun, clearly visible some fourteen miles distant on the farther bank of the Thames. The hollow way at the north-west end of the site leads down to a group of ‘rises’ hard by the remains of a Roman villa, and these springs are, at the present day, the nearest water-supply to the site.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1951

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 132 note 1 O.S. 25 in., sheet XXXVIII. 13 Bucks., marked ‘tumuli’.

page 132 note 2 The attention of the authors was later drawn to note published by Mr.Crossley-Holland, P. in Oxoniensia, vii (1942), 108Google Scholar, on surface finds collected by him from the present site.

page 132 note 3 Records of Bucks, xiv (1944), 189Google Scholar.

page 133 note 1 Ibid., ix (1909), 349.

page 133 note 2 See fig. 1.

page 133 note 3 It will be noted in section AB that pit 2 is stratigraphically later than pit I.

page 137 note 1 Proc. Hants. Field Club, xii, pt. ii (1933), 127, and xiii, pt. i (1935), 7.Google Scholar

page 138 note 1 See fig. 6, 5 1, fig. 8, 52.

page 138 note 2 Vulliamy, , Archaeology of Middlesex (1930), 137, fig. 22 A.Google Scholar

page 138 note 3 Revue archéologique, 4ème série, tome viii (1906), 337, fig. 44, 3 and 4, fig. 60, 3.Google Scholar

page 139 note 1 Arch. Journ. xci (1934), 272–3, fig. 2, 6 and fig. 3, 1 and 3.Google Scholar

page 139 note 2 Berks. Arch. J. 1 (1947), 28.Google Scholar

page 145 note 1 We are indebted to Mr. R. C. Sansome, through whose good offices the above analysis was obtained.