Some Vn- Described Articles in the Stourhead Collection. 261 



drawing 12), which coutained the burnt bones, without ashes. The 

 cist was made to fit the urn exactly, and to this I attribute its fine 

 preservation. On taking it up we discovered a considerable quantity 

 of decayed linen cloth, (and some pieces which I conceived to be 

 woollen), but although we could see enough to remark on the 

 coarseness and thinness of the texture, it would not bear exposure 

 to the rough wind we had that day. I think it is mnre than 

 probable that after the body was consumed, the bones were carefully 

 collected in this perhaps (then) fine linen cloth, and put into the urn." 

 The urn is of imperfectly-burnt clay of a coarse quality. The 

 rim is deep and well-formed, and ornamented with ten rows of 

 oblique dots, apparently produced by pressing on the surface while 

 soft, a twisted thong or cord. The lines are irregular and sometimes 

 overlap. The edge of the urn has short lines of similar dots very 

 irregularly-marked, sometimes at right angles, and sometimes 

 diagonally. It is 18^in. in height, 11^ in. in width across the 

 mouth, and 12in in its greatest diajcneter. 



On Two Speae- Heads in the Stourhead Collection 

 IN THE Wiltshire Museum. 



In Dr. Thurnam's very valuable report on the Round Barrows of 

 Wiltshire, " Archseologia,^' xliii., 447, an error occurs with respect 

 to a socketed spear- head, of which an engraving is there given. It 

 is desirable to correct this error, as important arguments have been 

 based on the occurrence of this variety of spear-head in British 

 barrows. 



The description of a riveted dagger, from the Wilsford group of 

 barrows, as given in " Ancient Wiltshire," vol. i., 208, has been by 

 mistake applied to a socketed and looped spear-head from a barrow 

 near Stonehenge.' 



Woodcuts are here given of both implements, for the purpose of 

 comparison. 



The first mentioned, the dagger from the Wilsford Group, No. 5 

 (it is more correct to speak of it as a dagger than as a spear) , was 



^ It is not surprising that this mistake was made, as the specimens were not 

 labelled, excepting with a number referring to Mr. Cunnington's private catalogue. 



