Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:15:21.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Further Excavations at Julliberrie's Grave, Chilham

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2012

R. F. Jessup
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A preliminary excavation of this barrow was made in 1936 and an account of the work then undertaken, together with a detailed topographical description of the site, was published in this Journal for April 1937 (vol. xvii, p. 122). The admittedly tentative conclusions which could then be advanced regarding its date and its relationship to the characteristic Neolithic longbarrows were largely based on extrinsic evidence, and positive indications obtained during the excavation itself were not as definite as could be wished. In 1937 Sir Edmund Davis suggested that in view of the significant geographical situation of the barrow further investigation was desirable, and he very generously again agreed to be entirely responsible for the cost. Altogether the work occupied some eight weeks, and during the college vacation I had the valued assistance of Dr. S. Graham Brade-Birks, Head of the Department of Geology at the South-Eastern Agricultural College, Wye. Mr. H. B. Bescoby, Head of the Department of Surveying at Wye, and two of his students, Messrs. D. Vickers and H. Castel, very kindly prepared a contour plan of the barrow, upon which the general plan (pl. XLIX) is based. My best thanks are also due to Dr. A. J. E. Cave, Dr. J. Wilfrid Jackson, Mr. A. S. Kennard, Mr. B. H. St. J. O'Neil, and Mr. Stuart Piggott for their contributions to this report, and again to Mr. H. Read Gillett, Sir Edmund Davis's agent, for many kindnesses.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , July 1939 , pp. 260 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1939

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 261 note 1 Brade-Birks, S. Graham in ‘The Soils of Great Britain’, Journal of the South-Eastern Agricultural College, no. 42, 10 Sept. 1938, p. 173Google Scholar

page 262 note 1 See First Report, p. 125.

page 263 note 1 See First Report, op. cit., p. 126, and to the references there given add Gentleman's Magazine, xliv (1774), 374–5Google Scholar.

page 263 note 2 Two pieces of the same pot were found, one in Finch's trench and one in the rubbish dump.

page 265 note 1 See also First Report, pp. 124 and 127. It is indeed tempting to suggest that these coins were dropped from the hoard there mentioned, which was discovered when Wildman was making a post-hole for his fence.

page 266 note 1 For instance, Collingwood, R. G., The Archaeology of Roman Britain (1930), p. 146Google Scholar. Kendrick, and Hawkes, , Archaeology in England: 1914–1931 (1932), p. 281Google Scholar.

page 266 note 2 Fox, Cyril, Archaeology of the Cambridge Region (1923), p. 190Google Scholar.

page 266 note 3 Museum, British, Guide to the Antiquities of Roman Britain (1922), p. 101Google Scholar.

page 267 note 1 Cf. the distribution map of thin-butted ‘Nordic’ axes in Jacob-Friesen, , Einführung in Niedersachsens Urgeschichte (1934), 26Google Scholar.

page 268 note 1 Found in Canterbury in the nineteenth century, exact find-spot unknown. Canterbury Museum, no. 659. Jessup, , Archaeology of Kent (1930), p. 52Google Scholar.

page 268 note 2 Proc. Prehist. Soc. iv (1938), 80–1Google Scholar.

page 268 note 3 Ibid, i (1935), 122.

page 268 note 4 Museum, Maidstone. The sherds were found ‘in a field near Orpington’, c. 1860. Arch. Cant, xlix (1937), 284Google Scholar.

page 269 note 1 Bursch, , Die Becherkultur in den Niederlanden (1933), 84, with refsGoogle Scholar.

page 269 note 2 van Giffen, , De Hunnebedden in Nederland (1927), pl. 154, 89Google Scholar; Proc. Prehist. Soc. ii (1936), 198Google Scholar.