^{page 77 note 1} See Ordnance Survey Map of Neolithic Wessex. Barrows mentioned in this report are referred to by their numbers as given in this map.

^{page 77 note 2} Pitt-Rivers, , Excavations in Cranborne Chase, vol. IV Google Scholar. The objects found are in the Pitt-Rivers Museum at Farnham, Dorset, where are also admirable models of Wor Barrow, before and after its excavation.

^{page 78 note 1} Internal wall, as at Capel Garmon, North Wales ( Hemp, W. J. in Arch. Camb. LXXXII, 1 Google Scholar.)

External wall, as at West Kennet, Wilts ( Thurnam, in Arch., XXXVIII, 410 Google Scholar).

Mr C. W. Phillips' excavation of a long barrow at Giants Hills affords a definite example of a setting of timber uprights around the perimeter of a long barrow ( P.P.S.E.A., VII, 404 Google Scholar).

^{page 78 note 2} Unpublished. We are deeply indebted to Mr Crawford for allowing us to see his notes, plans and sections.

^{page 79 note 1} The earthworks on this down are mentioned in the following works:—

Sumner, Heywood, Ancient Earthworks of Cranborne Chase, 35–37 Google Scholar.

Crawford, and Keiller, , Wessex from the Air, 31 Google Scholar.

Williams-Freeman, J. P., ‘Cross Dykes,’ Antiquity, VI, 34 Google Scholar.

Kendrick, and Hawkes, , Archaeology in England, 1914–1931, 66 Google Scholar.

Map of Neolithic Wessex. Introduction, p. 33.

^{page 79 note 2} The results are published in his book Die Bauart des Einzelgräber, 1928.

^{page 87 note 1} No. 11363, from Middle Ditch, Cutting V at 3.6 feet. Information from Mr Alexander Keiller.

^{page 87 note 2} From Inner Ditch, Cutting 1, Layer 4. Sussex Arch. Colls. LXX, p. 56 Google Scholar and fig. 175.

^{page 87 note 3} Journ. Ethnol. Soc. N.S. 11 (1869–1870) p. 430 Google Scholar.

^{page 87 note 4} Flint Miners of Blackpatch, Pull, J. H., p. 108 Google Scholar; pl. 10, fig. 3.

^{page 87 note 5} Proc. Dorset Field Club XXXIV (1913), p. 103 Google Scholar. An Early Bronze Age dating for the prehistoric pits at Maumbury was suggested by Mr M. C. Burkitt in conversation in 1932, on the evidence of the technique of flint working.

^{page 87 note 6} Listed by Clark, and Piggott, in Antiquity, VII, 172 Google Scholar. In addition there is an example from St. Catharine's Hill, Winchester, in an Iron Age A context. (St. Catharine's Hill, p. 123).

^{page 87 note 7} A dozen examples from various ditches and cuttings.

^{page 87 note 8} Sussex Arch. Colls. LXX, pp. 61 and 62 Google Scholar.

^{page 87 note 9} Ibid. LXXI, p. 80.

^{page 87 note 10} Ibid. LXVII, pp. 19–23.

^{page 87 note 11} Exhibited in Dorchester Museum.

^{page 87 note 12} Sussex Arch. Colls. LXXII, p. 112 Google Scholar.

^{page 87 note 13} Ant. Journ. VIII, Pl. LXXIII, d.

^{page 88 note 1} From Inner Ditch, Cutting XIV, on bottom, No. B. 164.

^{page 88 note 2} Sussex Arch. Colls. LXVII, 18 Google Scholar.

^{page 88 note 3} V.C.H. Beds, 169, fig. 60. The site has also yielded Windmill Hill ware, but not directly associated with the comb.

^{page 88 note 4} Report to be puplished shortly.

^{page 88 note 5} Exhibited in the London Museum.

^{page 88 note 6} Mortimer, , Forty Years' Researches, 262 Google Scholar. Associated with Neolithic A ware in a round barrow.

^{page 88 note 7} Mortimer op. cit. 312. Apparently with a primary inhumation in a round barrow.

^{page 88 note 8} We omit one flint (No. 30) from the surface layer of the ditch, since it clearly belongs to a period much later than the barrow. It is unpatinated, and has several crudely worked notches showing signs of use.

^{page 88 note 9} It should be borne in mind that the depth of the ditch was by no means uniform, there being only three layers in D. VII-X, and four in D. VI and D. XI-XII.

^{page 88 note 10} Williamson, R. P. R., S.A.S.C., LXXI, p. 79 Google Scholar.

^{page 89 note 1} Curwen, Dr E. C., S.A.S.C., LXVII, pp. 133–4Google Scholar.

^{page 89 note 2} MissLiddell, D., D.A.E.S., 1931, p. 34 Google Scholar.

^{page 90 note 1} In the Report Aurignacian parallels were cited.

^{page 91 note 1} Clark, , Arch. J., XC, pp. 52 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 2} Clark, Ant. J., Nos. 75–87.

^{page 92 note 1} The Long Bones of the English Skeleton, Part 1, Femur, by Pearson, K. and Bell, J., 1919 Google Scholar, Table V.

^{page 93 note 1} See Report on Animal Remains, in Woodhenge by Devizes, Mrs Cunnington, 1929 Google Scholar.

^{page 93 note 2} Ant. J., April, 1934, pp. 128–9Google Scholar.

^{page 93 note 3} The horse remains were from the uppermost layer of the ditch and were therefore not from a Neolithic horizon.

^{page 94 note 1} Poorly preserved and possibly Prunus sp. (plum, cherry).

^{page 95 note *} There is, however, a possible alternative explanation for the difference in the two faunules which may be worth stating. Mr Kennard has grouped the loci into two, one of Neolithic A age, the other of Neolithic B and Beaker age. But one must point out that his two groups also coincide with important differences in the locations from which the samples have been derived; his Neolithic A group all derive from the old turf-line or the primary silting of the ditch, whereas his later group derive entirely from the secondary silting of the ditch—the silting which accumulated after the natural angle of rest had been achieved. The faunule from the later samples affords positive and striking evidence, as Mr Kennard has shown, that the climate was damper in Neolithic B and Beaker times than at the present day. The question at issue is whether the faunule from the older samples is sufficient evidence for demonstrating a drier climate in Neolithic A times. One must point out that the evidence is purely negative, and that the faunule from these samples is ‘remarkable … from the paucity of species and examples.’ That alone must impose caution. When we recall that the younger samples come from the slow silting of an open ditch, where one might expect to find damp-loving species, if general climatic conditions permitted them, whereas the older samples all came from situations less favourable, it seems all the more hazardous to draw general conclusions as to climate change between the two periods represented. In fact one would venture to suggest that the differences between the two groups may, to some extent, be interpreted as due to the different loci from which the samples were derived. The Editor.

^{page 96 note 1} Wilts. Arch. Mag. XLV, 330 Google Scholar.

^{page 96 note 2} Ibid. XLIII, 311.