^{page 98 note 1} R. E. M. Wheeler (Soc. Ant. Research Committee Report, No. XII), Maiden Castle, Dorset.

^{page 98 note 2} Richardson, K. M., Antiq. Journ. xx (1940), 429 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 98 note 3} A number of people have rendered valuable assistance at all stages of the operations. In particular, grateful thanks are due to Mr. George Kirk, who contributed much to the success of the field work; to Mr. V. F. M. Oliver, who surveyed the whole site singlehanded; and to Col. Drew, Dr. Bersu, Miss Margot Eates, Mr. Dunning, and Mr. Hawkes, who helped in various ways. I am also indebted to Mr. Diment, the owner of the land, for permission to carry out the excavations, and to the Ministry of Works for allowing us to dig on a scheduled site. Finally, I have to thank Mr. John Waechter for his paper on the flints and Dr. Wheeler for much timely advice and for his kindness in giving me free access to the proofs of the final report on Maiden Castle.

^{page 99 note 1} Grundy, G. B., Arch. Journ. xcv (1938), 198.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 2} Excavated by the local antiquary, Charles Warne. See The Celtic Tumuli of Dorset (1865), 58, and Abercromby, Bronze Age Pottery (1912), ii, 41.

^{page 101 note 1} In this report the expression ‘hut circle’ is used, as it is the generally accepted term. So far, only the largest depression has been proved to be the site of a hut.

^{page 101 note 2} One barrow was excavated by Charles Warne, who found in it two fragmentary urns and some burnt bones (The Celtic Tumuli of Dorset, 31).

^{page 102 note 1} Maiden Castle Report, 103.

^{page 102 note 2} Antiq. Journ. xx (1940), pl. LXVI.

^{page 102 note 3} Maiden Castle Report, 122.

^{page 104 note 1} Cunnington, M. E., Wilts. Arch. Mag. xlvi (1933), 207.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 2} M. E. Cunnington, All Cannings Cross, 40.

^{page 104 note 3} Hawkes, C. F. C., Proc. Hants Field Club and Arch. Soc. xiv, pt. 2 (1939), 179.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 1} Cunnington, M. E., Wilts. Arch. Mag. xliii (1925), 57.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 2} Maiden Castle Report, 100.

^{page 107 note 1} Dr.Bersu, G., Proc. Prehist. Soc. vi, pt. 1 (1940), 78 ff. and 92 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 1} Dr.Bersu, G., Proc. Prehist. Soc. vi, pt. 1 (1940), 64 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 2} Examples illustrated in Abercromby, Bronze Age Pottery, vol. ii, are nos. 389, 396, 404, 405, 406, and 408.

^{page 108 note 3} Chalbury finds do not bear out the suggestion that, in the Iron Age, pottery was ‘no longer a domestic product but was manufactured in certain centres and sold in markets’ (Dr. Bersu, Proc. Prehist. Soc. vi, 1940, 105). The coarse wares were almost certainly made on the spot, for many sherds were of very poor quality, practically wasters, and it would not have been worth while for the inhabitants to import such poorly made stuff from outside. The finding of a lump of haematite at Maiden Castle (Maiden Castle Report, 380) shows that high-class pottery was actually made there, but the fact that there was a slight trade in Glastonbury wares at a later date (ibid., 215) does not preclude the possibility of a similar exiguous trade in Iron Age A times.

The matter is raised here, as the acceptance or rejection of Dr. Bersu's suggestion might affect the current estimate of Iron Age A culture and economy.

^{page 109 note 1} C. F. C. Hawkes, J. N. L. Myres, C. G. Stevens, Saint Catharine's Hill, Winchester, (1930) 101, 102, and 104 ff.

^{page 110 note 1} C. F. C. Hawkes, Proc. Prehist. Soc., No. 2 (1935), 56, 58.

^{page 110 note 2} Maiden Castle Report, fig. 56.

^{page 110 note 3} Ibid., 107.

^{page 110 note 4} Ibid., 186–92.

^{page 110 note 5} Ibid., 191.

^{page 111 note 1} Calkin, J. B. and Piggott, C. M., Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. and Arch. Soc. lx (1938), 66.Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 2} Maiden Castle Report, 195.

^{page 111 note 3} M. E. Cunnington, All Cannings Cross, pl. 30, no. 1; pl. 38, no. 6; pl. 40, no. 2.

^{page 114 note 1} Maiden Castle Report, fig. 56, nos. 5–8, 12.

^{page 115 note 1} All Cannings Cross, pl. 42, no. 1.

^{page 115 note 2} Saint Catharine's Hill, fig. 10, A. 3.

^{page 115 note 3} Maiden Castle Report, fig. 56, no. 15.

^{page 115 note 4} All Cannings Cross, pl. 44, no. 4.

^{page 115 note 5} Ibid., pl. 28, nos. 9, 14, 15, and 18.

^{page 115 note 6} Maiden Castle Report, fig. 56, no. 16; fig. 60, no. 72.

^{page 115 note 7} Clay, R. C. C., Wilts. Arch. Mag. xliii (1925), 92 ff., pl. vi, no. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 8} Maiden Castle Report, fig. 59, no. 59.

^{page 117 note 1} J. P. Bushe Fox (Soc. Ant. Research Committee Report, no. III), Hengistbury Head, pl. xix, nos. 8 and 9.

^{page 117 note 2} All Cannings Cross, pl. 28, no. 17.

^{page 117 note 3} Maiden Castle Report, fig. 57, no. 20.

^{page 118 note 1} All Cannings Cross, pl. 20, no. 14.

^{page 118 note 2} Saint Catharine's Hill, fig. 16, no. 5.

^{page 118 note 3} Curwen, E. C., Antiquity, ix (1937), 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 118 note 4} Maiden Castle Report, fig. 98, no. 2.

^{page 118 note 5} All Cannings Cross, pl. 18, nos. 2, 4, and 5.