^{page 1 note 1} Kendrick, T. D. and Hawkes, C. F. C., Archaeology in England and Wales, 1914–1931, chap. VIIGoogle Scholar.

^{page 1 note *} In the preparation of this paper for publication I am indebted to the Controller of H.M. Stationery Office and to the Director General, Ordnance Survey, for permission to reproduce the air-photographs on plates 1, 11, XIII and XIV; to the Editor of Antiquity for the loan of blocks of pls. III, VII, VIII and IX; to Mr T. D. Kendrick for permission to reproduce figs. 20 and 25; to Mr Stuart Piggott for pl. XI; to Dr van Giffen for figs. 15–17; to Dr E. C. Curwen and Mr J. H. Pull for fig. 11; to Mrs M. E. Cunnington for fig. 14; to Mr O. G. S. Crawford for fig. 27; to Mr Alexander Keiller for information about Avebury; and to the Society of Antiquaries of London for allowing the electro for fig. 10 to be made.

^{page 1 note 2} Cunnington, M. E., Woodhenge, p. 4 Google Scholar.

^{page 1 note 3} Editorial notes, Antiquity, September, 1929.

^{page 2 note 1} This desecration of the site, made after its significance had been made public by the Editor of Antiquity, regrettable though it must be considered on general grounds, yet provided us with an admirable vantage point for photography. In this last connection we must be grateful to the Central Electricity Board and especially to their local representative, Mr W. G. Todd, for their helpful co-operation.

^{page 3 note 1} Editorial Notes, Antiquity, September, 1929.

^{page 3 note 2} Clarke, Rainbird, Notes on the Archaeology of Markshall, Norfolk and Norwich Archaeological Society, xxv, pp. 354–367 Google Scholar.

^{page 3 note 3} Much the same can be said of long barrows. In discussing the Holdenhurst barrow, situated on gravel between Bournemouth and Christchurch overlooking the river Stour, Crawford makes the point that the distribution of long barrows is determined primarily by questions of vegetation and water-supply. Antiquity, 1930, pp. 357–8Google Scholar.

^{page 3 note 4} Crawford, O. G. S., ‘Some Recent Air Discoveries,’ Antiquity, Sept., 1933, pp. 290–6Google Scholar. See especially pp. 293–5 and pls. IV–VI.

^{page 3 note 5} Leeds, E. T., ‘Rectangular Enclosures of the Bronze Age in the Upper Thames Valley,’ Ant. J., 1934, pp. 414–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 5 note 1} Phillips, C. W., ‘Note on an Air-photograph of Fields at Barnack, Northants.,’ Proc. Prehist. Soc., pp. 156–7Google Scholar.

^{page 14 note 1} Newall, R. S. in his article on ‘Stonehenge’ (Antiquity, 1929, p. 77)Google Scholar points out that the mortise and tenon device has been badly rendered in stone.

^{page 19 note 1} This definition includes expressly pottery of which the surface is roughened more or less all over; it excludes pottery showing only a few scattered stabs or finger-nail impressions, as well as that decorated by horizontal zones of obliquely opposed pairs of jabs, like the B Beakers from Lakenheath (Fox, Arch. Camb. Region, pl. 1, no. 3) and Great Clacton (Colchester Museum, no. 104.92). The variety with scattered stabs probably goes with the truly rusticated ware, e.g. the large beaker-like pot from Peterborough, resembling the Somersham beaker somewhat in form, but decorated only with a few stabs scattered sparsely only on the upper part ( Leeds, , ‘Further discoveries of the Neolithic and Bronze Ages at Peterborough,’ Ant. J., II, pp. 220 ff, fig. 5)Google Scholar.

^{page 20 note 1} Curwen, E. C., ‘Excavations in Whitehawk Neolithic Camp, Brighton, 1932–3,’ Ant. J., XIV, 1934, p. 112 Google Scholar.

^{page 20 note 2} The pot with the raised rib is not made up but would probably be about a foot high.

^{page 22 note 1} In the University Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge. Mus. no. C.6.

^{page 22 note 2} C. Fox, Archaeology of the Cambridge Region, pl. 11, no. 3.

^{page 23 note 1} British Museum, 1935, 2–5. The pottery is very fragmentary and is in many cases rather badly weathered so that one cannot say with confidence exactly how the ridges were formed. There are, however, definite traces of stabs.

^{page 23 note 2} Leaf, C. S., ‘Report on the Excavation of Two Sites in Mildenhali Fen,’ Proc. C.A.S., XXXV, 1935, pp. 106 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 26 note 1} E.g. Nothing was found in the central area as Arminghall and the poverty of archaeological material from such sites as Stonehenge and Arbor Low does not require stressing.

^{page 26 note 2} Archaeologia, LXXXIV, p. 161 Google Scholar.

^{page 26 note 3} Wessex from the Air, p. 213 Google Scholar.

^{page 27 note 1} The Circle and the Cross, p. 22.

^{page 27 note 2} Map of Neolithic Wessex, p. 6.

^{page 29 note 1} Ant. J., VIII, p. 150 Google Scholar.

^{page 30 note 1} Woodhenge, p. 25.

^{page 30 note 2} Compare the groove and stab decorated sherds from Woodhenge with the pot from Bronneger, hunebed D ( van Giffen, , Hunebedden in den Niederlanden, taf. 154, no. 89)Google Scholar.

^{page 30 note 3} A sherd of beaker pottery was found in a charcoal stratum under the bank. Of course this stratum might be much earlier than the bank.

^{page 30 note 4} Wessex from the Air, p. 213.

^{page 30 note 5} Hoare, Colt (Anc. Wiltshire, I, p. 170)Google Scholar describes it as ‘the mutilated remains of an enormous Druid barrow,’ and Goddard in his list of Wiltshire antiquities ( W.A.M., XXXVIII, p. 248 Google Scholar) classes it as a disc-barrow.

^{page 30 note 6} e.g. Kendrick, , Archaeology in England, 1914–1931, p. 112 Google Scholar; Grinsell, , Ancient Burial-mounds of England, P. 23 Google Scholar.

^{page 30 note 7} Crawford, (Wessex from the Air, p. 213)Google Scholar wrote: ‘… whether Avebury may be a big disc-barrow or disc-barrows be little Aveburys one cannot say ….’ The chronology suggests that the latter is the only possible alternative.

^{page 30 note 8} e.g. Grinsell, op. cit.; fig. 2.

^{page 31 note 1} e.g. Crawford, O. G. S., Antiquity, 1929, p. 259 Google Scholar.

Varley, W. J., ‘Bleasdale and the Idea of Timber Circles,’ Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, XX, pp. 187 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 31 note 2} See above p. 30.

^{page 31 note 3} van Giffen, , Die Bauart der Einzelgräber, pp. 50 and 115 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 32 note 1} Forty Years' Researches, pp. 153–6.

^{page 32 note 2} Probably there were two phases in the construction of the barrow. A secondary (unaccompanied) burial was found in a central position, but its vertical position was not stated.

^{page 33 note 1} Jerman, H. Noel, Montgomeryshire Historical and Archaeological Coll., 1932, pp. 176–81Google Scholar.

^{page 33 note 2} Trans. Lancs. and Cheshire Ant. Soc., XVIII, 1900, pp. 114–124 Google Scholar.

^{page 33 note 3} Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, XX, pp. 187–194 Google Scholar.

^{page 35 note 1} The larger (2–3 feet diam.) posts were set 5–6 feet in the boulder-clay, the smaller (8 inches diam.) only 3 feet. The bases of the posts had been dressed almost at right-angles by a metal adze.

^{page 36 note 1} Arch. Cambr., LXXXI, 1926, pp. 48–85 Google Scholar.

^{page 36 note 2} The Circle and the Cross, p. 22.

^{page 36 note 3} The Sanctuary on Overton Hill was known to Aubrey and to Stukeley, both of whom described it as marking the end of the Kennet avenue from Avebury. It was re-discovered and excavated by MrsCunnington, M. E. (W.A.M., XLV, pp. 300 ff.Google Scholar), who found the socket-holes of two stone circles and six wooden ones. The excavators think from the arrangement of the circles that the wooden posts were replaced within a few years by stone uprights. The monument lacks a bank and ditch and cannot properly be considered as a separate ‘henge’ monument, though it does form an outlying feature of the largest of the whole class. Peterborough and Beaker sherds were found in the post- and stone-holes and the crouched burial of a dolichocephalic youth found at the foot of one of the stones was accompanied by a beaker.

^{page 36 note 4} ‘Recent Archaeological Research in Scotland,’ Arch., LXXVII, p. 97 Google Scholar.

^{page 37 note 1} Hist. Monuments (Scotland) Comm. Inventory Outer Hebrides, Skye and the small isles, 1928, item 89.

^{page 37 note 2} The Book of Arran, pp. 113 ff.

^{page 39 note 1} Prehistory of Scotland, p. 52.

^{page 39 note 2} Keiller, A., Megalithic Monuments of North-East Scotland, 1934 Google Scholar.

^{page 39 note 3} Gray, H. St. George, ‘On the Excavations at Arbor Low, 1901–2,’ Archaeologia, LVIII (2), 1903, pp. 461–498 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 39 note 4} Thus:

Dr. Pegge (1783): ‘The stones formerly stood on end, two and two together, which is very particular.’

Rev. S. Isaacson (1845) … ‘these stones were never placed in an erect position.’

Gardner Wilkinson (1860) … ‘it is evident that they originally stood upright, as in other sacred circles.’

Lord Avebury (1879) … ‘it is doubtful whether they were ever upright,’ etc., etc.

Gray's excavations revealed no socket-holes, but this implies nothing. Heavy well-balanced stones with a reasonably suitable base would be orthostatic, supporting themselves by their own weight. Mr Keiller's excavations on the line of the Kennet Avenue at Avebury have revealed no especially prepared holes to retain the stones, but the original posture of the stones which he has re-erected cannot be doubted.

^{page 41 note 1} Stukeley, W., Abury, 1743 Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 2} SirHoare, Richard Colt, Ancient Wiltshire, II, 1819, pp. 57 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 42 note 1} Gray, H. St. G., ‘The Avebury Excavations, 1908–22,’ Archaeologia, LXXXIV, pp. 90 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 42 note 2} Crawford, O. G. S. and Keiller, A., Wessex from the Air, pp. 210–13, 1928 Google Scholar.

^{page 42 note 3} According to Stukeley the inner circles consisted of concentric pairs, though even in his day little remained of the innermost circles.

^{page 42 note 4} Anderson, J., Scotland in Pagan Times, vol. 1, pp. 104 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 42 note 5} To-day a stone upright stands at the centre of the monument, but this was erected for the first time in 1855 when Dalrymple excavated the cist.

^{page 42 note 6} Childe, V. G., The Prehistory of Scotland, pp. 112–3Google Scholar.

^{page 42 note 7} Richie, J., The Stone Circle at Broomend of Crichie, Aberdeenshire, P.S.A.S., LIV, 1920, 154 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 42 note 8} Crawford, ibid., p. 9.

^{page 42 note 9} Pilkington, , Present State of Derbyshire, 1789 Google Scholar.

^{page 44 note 1} Dymond, Mayburgh and King Arthur's Round Table, Trans. Cumb. and West. Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., XI (1891), pp. 187–219 Google Scholar.

^{page 44 note 2} Stukeley, , Itinerarium Curiosum, II, p. 43 Google Scholar.

^{page 44 note 3} Pennant, First Tour in Scotland.

^{page 44 note 4} Account of some of the Celtic Antiquities of Orkney …, Arch., XXXIV, 1851, pp. 88–136 Google Scholar.

^{page 44 note 5} Prehistory of Scotland, p. 113.

^{page 44 note 6} e.g. Stukeley, W., Stonehenge, 1740 Google Scholar.

^{page 44 note 7} Gowland, W., ‘Recent Excavations at Stonehenge’, Archaeologia, LVIII, 1902, pp. 37 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 45 note 1} Lt.-Col. Hawley, W.'s, series of five Excavation Reports, Ant. J., I, pp. 19 ffGoogle Scholar; II, pp. 36 ff; III, pp. 13 ff; IV, pp. 30 ff; VIII, pp. 149 ff.

^{page 45 note 2} Crawford, O. G. S., ‘The Stonehenge Avenue,’ Ant. J., IV, pp. 57 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 45 note 3} MrsCunnington, M. E., ‘Note on bluestone chips in barrows,’ Antiquity, 1929, pp. 223 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 45 note 4} Thomas, H. H., ‘The Source of the Stones of Stonehenge,’ Ant. J., III, pp. 239 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 45 note 5} Newall, R. S., ‘Stonehenge,’ Antiquity, 1929, pp. 75 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 45 note 6} T. D. Kendrick, Archaeology in England and Wales, chp. VII.

^{page 46 note 1} The discovery by excavation of four socket-holes in the chalk across the open end of this inner ‘horseshoe’ suggests that it may once have been closed.

^{page 46 note 2} So-called because it was recorded on the plan made by Aubrey for his Monumenta Britannica in 1666.

^{page 46 note 3} It is interesting that early legends, which are mentioned in the writings of Geoffrey of Monmouth and Giraldus Cambrensis, dating from the 12th and 13th centuries, also derive the bluestones from the far west— actually from Ireland.

^{page 47 note 1} Gray, H. St. G., ‘On the Stone Circles of East Cornwall’, Archaeologia, XL, 1908, pp. 1 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 47 note 2} SirHoare, R. Colt, Ancient Wiltshire, I p. 170 Google Scholar.

^{page 47 note 3} Antiquity, 1927, pp. 99—100 Google Scholar.

^{page 47 note 4} MrsCunnington, M. E., ‘Prehistoric Timber Circles’, Antiquity, 1927, pp. 92–5Google Scholar.

^{page 47 note 5} MrsCunnington, M. E., Woodhenge, Devizes, 1929 Google Scholar.

^{page 47 note 6} The ramps of the fifth ring have all survived; a few remain in the sixth ring but traces of others may have been ploughed away.

^{page 49 note 1} Antiquity, 1927, pp. 469 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 49 note 2} Crawford, O. G. S., ‘Durrington Walls,’ Antiquity, 1929, pp. 49–59 Google Scholar.

^{page 49 note 3} Crawford, O. G. S., ‘The Thornborough Circles,’ British Association, Leeds, 1927, Excursions Handbook L, p. 8 Google Scholar.

^{page 49 note 4} Dymond, C. W., ‘Mayburgh and King Arthur's Round Table,’ Trans. Cumb. and West. Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., XI, 1891, pp. 187–219 Google Scholar.

^{page 49 note 5} Stukeley, , Itinerarium Curiosum, II, p. 43, 1725 Google Scholar.

^{page 49 note 6} Sumner, Heywood, Earthworks of Cranbourne Chase, pp. 46–7Google Scholar.

^{page 50 note 1} SirHoare, R. Colt, Ancient Wiltshire, II, pl. 1, no. 2, and pp. 5–7 Google Scholar.

^{page 51 note 1} At Highworth in Wiltshire some 40 circles in five or six distinct groups have been discovered from the air by Major Allen. The circles have diameters ranging between 140 and 340 feet. Those which are visible on the ground have been found to consist of a low bank 15–20 feet wide with a shallow internal ditch about the same width. No trace of an entrance has been found, a feature in which they show agreement with the Priddy circles. Trenching operations by Mr A. D. Passmore in two of the circles are reported in the Journal of Roman Studies for 1935, p. 220. In situations unspecified Mr Passmore is reported to have found Roman pottery and the debris of building material ‘suggesting habitation.’ It is also stated that ‘Mr Passmore thinks the ditches and banks were made to drain the heavy clay of the valley in which they occur.’ Until these circles are more fully reported on no useful comments can be made.

^{page 51 note 2} O. G. S. Crawford, ibid., p. 9.

^{page 51 note 3} Grinsell, L. V., The Ancient Burial Mounds of England, p. 124 Google Scholar.

^{page 51 note 4} Crawford, O. G. S., ‘The Thofnborough Circles,’ British Association, Leeds, 1927, Excursions Handbook L, p. 8 Google Scholar.